A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/12/2026 except the amended claim has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Amendment after Final office action filed on 7/1/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Please do NOT enter the amended claim filed on 7/12/2026.
In the instant case, the claim filed on 7/12/2026 is identical to the claim filed on 7/1/2026. Since the claim filed on 7/1/2026 has been entered by the Examiner, the claim filed on 7/12/2026 is a non-compliant amendment (see MPEP 714). Therefore, the claim filed on 7/12/2026 is not entered.
4. Claim filed on 7/1/2026 is acknowledged.
5. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled.
6. Claims 1 and 4-13 are pending in this application.
7. Claims 5-13 remain withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
8. Applicant elected without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-4) and elected of (a) N-terminal in claim 1 and (b) SEQ ID NO: 3 in claim 3 as species of ferritin nanocage in the reply filed on 11/25/2025. Since the elected species of ferritin nanocage is not a species, the Examiner telephoned Applicant’s representative, Hyun Yong Lee, on 12/9/2025 for further species election. And Applicant’s representative elected on the phone that the ferritin nanocage formed by PpNF disclosed in instant Figure 1 as the elected species of ferritin nanocage.
Restriction requirement was deemed proper and made FINAL in the previous office actions. Group 1 is drawn to a ferritin nanocage comprising a fusion polypeptide, wherein the fusion polypeptide is a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-binding peptide consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 conjugated, via a linker consisting of the amino acid sequence GG, to an N-terminus of a human ferritin heavy chain fragment consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1. A search was conducted on the elected species; and prior art was found. Claims 1 and 4 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Please note: All the objections and all the rejections to claim 2 set forth in the Final office action dated 5/6/2026 have been withdrawn in the Advisory action mailed on 7/6/2026.
Terminal Disclaimer
9. The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/12/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US patent 11306119 B2 has been disapproved.
Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132
10. The Declaration of Soyoun Kim under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 7/12/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection to claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al (US 2019/0216947 A1, cited and enclosed in the previous office actions) in view of Lee et al (WO 2019117690 A1, filed with IDS, a clear copy of the machine translation is used and enclosed in the previous office actions, pages 1-42), Kim et al (US 2018/0291072 A1, filed with IDS) and Meyer (EP1884521 A1, cited and enclosed in the previous office actions) as set forth in Section 14 below for the following reasons:
First, with regards to Applicant’s arguments about unexpected results, as stated in Section 20 of the Final office action dated 5/6/2026, as stated in MPEP: “An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.” (see MPEP § 716.02(e)). In the instant case, the closest prior art is the cited Nam et al reference. Therefore, the comparison for unexpected results should be made between the ferritin nanocage in the cited Nam et al reference and instant claimed ferritin nanocage (see MPEP § 716.02(e)).
Second, in the instant case, in view of the teachings of both Nam et al and Kim et al, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand that for a fusion protein comprising human ferritin heavy chain fragment, the human ferritin heavy chain fragment can be at either the N- or a C-terminus of the fusion protein. One of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect that a fusion protein comprising human ferritin heavy chain fragment at the N-terminus of the fusion protein would not behave the same as a fusion protein comprising human ferritin heavy chain fragment at the C-terminus of the fusion protein. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner why and/or how the results regarding PpNF and PpCF are unexpected.
Third, the Examiner would like to point out that the difference between PpNF and PpCF is more than just the position of the human ferritin heavy chain fragment in the fusion polypeptide. The linkers in PpNF and PpCF are not the same. And it is well known in the art that one should only test one variables at a time in an experiment, as discussed in Twist (Why Should You Only Test For One Variable At A Time In An Experiment? from https://www.sciencing.com/should-only-test-one-variable-time-experiment-11414533/, 2022, pages 1-8) and many others. Therefore, in the instant case, one of ordinary skilled in the art would not be able to reach the conclusion that the results regarding PpNF and PpCF are solely due to the position of the human ferritin heavy chain fragment in the fusion polypeptide; and such difference could be due to the linker in these fusion polypeptides. It appears to the Examiner that Applicant assumes the difference between PpNF and PpCF is solely due to the position of the human ferritin heavy chain fragment. However, other than statements/arguments, Applicant fails to provide any data and/or evidence to support such assumption and/or arguments.
Fourth, the data provided by Applicant regarding the binding of PpNF and PpCF to PD-L1 are inconsistent. Such inconsistent data make it unpersuasive that PpCF fails to bind to PD-L1 at all. In the instant case, it appears to the Examiner that based on instant Figure 1C, the display patterns of PD-L1 binding peptide on the ferritin surface varied, with the peptides on PpNF being widely dispersed and the peptides on PpCF are also dispersed, but to a lesser extent than those on PpNF. And based on instant Figure 3A, a lower amount of PpCF than of PpNF does bind to MDA-MB231 cells. Therefore, based on the inconsistent data, Applicant’s arguments that PpCF fails to bind to PD-L1 at all are unpersuasive.
Fifth, with regarding the instant claimed PpNF nanocage produces a greater immune-checkpoint-inhibitory effect than an anti-PD-L1 antibody and/or the free PD-L1-binding peptide, in the instant case, in view of the teachings of Nam et al (US 2019/0216947 A1, cited and enclosed in the previous office actions), one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect that instant claimed PpNF nanocage exhibits a multivalent display of the peptide on the surface of the ferritin nanocage (see for example, Figure 1). And it is well known in the art that the advantages of polyvalent/ multivalent interaction in biological systems, including enhanced affinity, increasing strength and specificity of binding, preventing undesirable interaction, and many others, as discussed in Mammen et al (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 1998, 37, pages 2754-2794, see for example, page 2767, Figure 9; and pages 2771-2774, Section “4.1. Functional advantages of Polyvalent Interactions”) and many others. Therefore, in the instant case, one of ordinary skilled would reasonably expect the instant claimed PpNF nanocage produces a greater immune-checkpoint-inhibitory effect than an anti-PD-L1 antibody and/or the free PD-L1-binding peptide.
Taken all these together, the filed Declaration is insufficient to overcome the rejection to claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in Section 14 below.
The Twist and Mammen et al reference are cited only for the purpose of rebutting Applicant's arguments, therefore, they are not cited as prior art references.
New Objections
11. Claim 1 is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 1 as “ …via a linker consisting of the amino acid sequence GG, to N-terminus of a human ferritin heavy chain fragment…”.
Maintained/Revised Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
14. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claims 1 and 4 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al (US 2019/0216947 A1, cited and enclosed in the previous office actions) in view of Lee et al (WO 2019117690 A1, filed with IDS, a clear copy of the machine translation is used and enclosed in the previous office actions, pages 1-42), Kim et al (US 2018/0291072 A1, filed with IDS) and Meyer (EP1884521 A1, cited and enclosed in the previous office actions).
The instant claims 1 and 4 are drawn to a ferritin nanocage comprising a fusion polypeptide, wherein the fusion polypeptide is a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-binding peptide consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 conjugated, via a linker consisting of the amino acid sequence GG, to an N-terminus of a human ferritin heavy chain fragment consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.
Nam et al, throughout the patent, teach ferritin nanocage formed by self-assembly of a fusion protein comprising a phagocytosis enhancing protein SIRPα or SIRPγ and a ferritin heavy chain protein and a second fusion protein comprising a ferritin heavy chain protein and a single chain-based antibody targeting PD-1/PD-L1 as an immunotherapeutic agent; wherein the single chain-based antibody targeting PD-1/PD-L1 is on the outer surface of the ferritin nanocage; and wherein the SIRPα or SIRPγ is linked to the N-terminal or C-terminal of the ferritin heavy chain protein, for example, Abstract; Figure 1B; page 1, paragraph [0014]; page 9, paragraph [0098]; and claim 18. Nam et al further teach a linker is presented in the fusion proteins, wherein the linker is selected from the group consisting of (G4S)n, (GSSGGS)n and SEQ ID NOS: 65-81, for example, page 4, paragraph [0039]; and page 5, paragraph [0048].
The difference between the reference and instant claims 1 and 4 is that the reference does not teach the ferritin nanocage formed by PpNF disclosed in instant Figure 1 as the elected species of ferritin nanocage; and the ferritin nanocage recited in instant claim 1 and 4.
However, Lee et al, throughout the patent, teach a peptide that binds to PD-L1 and its use in cancer immunotherapy; wherein such peptide blocks the interaction between PD-1 and its ligand PD-L1, and in comparison to antibodies that block the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, it is a highly effective and low-cost inhibitor of PD-1 and PD-L1; and wherein such peptide can be PD-L1Pep-1 consisting of the amino acid sequence CLQKTPKQC (identical to the PD-L1-binding peptide of instant SEQ ID NO: 2), for example, pages 1-2, paragraphs [0001]; [0002] and [0004]; and page 25, paragraph [0085].
Furthermore, Kim et al, throughout the patent, teach a human-derived ferritin monomer fragment and a fusion polypeptide in which a polypeptide or a protein is fused to the N- or a C-terminus of the ferritin monomer fragment optionally via a linker; wherein the human-derived ferritin monomer fragment is short Ferritin H consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 (identical to the human ferritin heavy chain fragment of instant SEQ ID NO: 1); and wherein in comparison to the wild-type human ferritin heavy chain, the short Ferritin H has various advantages, including a steric hindrance is so alleviated that the limitation on the size of a peptide or a protein that can be fused to the C-terminus is eliminated, for example, Abstract; page 1, paragraphs [0001], [0009] and [0010]; and page 3, paragraphs [0041] and [0047].
In addition, Meyer teaches GG as a peptide linker that can be used in fusion protein/polypeptide, for example, page 6, paragraph [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nam et al, Lee et al, Kim et al and Meyer to develop a ferritin nanocage comprising a fusion polypeptide, wherein the fusion polypeptide is PD-L1Pep-1 consisting of the amino acid sequence CLQKTPKQC (identical to the PD-L1-binding peptide of instant SEQ ID NO: 2) conjugated to the N-terminus of the short Ferritin H consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 in Kim et al (identical to the human ferritin heavy chain fragment of instant SEQ ID NO: 1) via a linker consisting of the amino acid sequence GG, and wherein the PD-L1Pep-1 is on the outer surface of the ferritin nanocage. It reads on the ferritin nanocage formed by PpNF disclosed in instant Figure 1 as the elected species of ferritin nanocage.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Nam et al, Lee et al, Kim et al and Meyer to develop a ferritin nanocage comprising a fusion polypeptide, wherein the fusion polypeptide is PD-L1Pep-1 consisting of the amino acid sequence CLQKTPKQC (identical to the PD-L1-binding peptide of instant SEQ ID NO: 2) conjugated to the N-terminus of the short Ferritin H consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 in Kim et al (identical to the human ferritin heavy chain fragment of instant SEQ ID NO: 1) via a linker consisting of the amino acid sequence GG, and wherein the PD-L1Pep-1 is on the outer surface of the ferritin nanocage, because Lee et al, throughout the patent, teach a peptide that binds to PD-L1 and its use in cancer immunotherapy; wherein such peptide blocks the interaction between PD-1 and its ligand PD-L1, and in comparison to antibodies that block the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, it is a highly effective and low-cost inhibitor of PD-1 and PD-L1; and wherein such peptide can be PD-L1Pep-1 consisting of the amino acid sequence CLQKTPKQC (identical to the PD-L1-binding peptide of instant SEQ ID NO: 2). Kim et al, throughout the patent, teach a human-derived ferritin monomer fragment and a fusion polypeptide in which a polypeptide or a protein is fused to the N- or a C-terminus of the ferritin monomer fragment optionally via a linker; wherein the human-derived ferritin monomer fragment is short Ferritin H consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 (identical to the human ferritin heavy chain fragment of instant SEQ ID NO: 1); and wherein in comparison to the wild-type human ferritin heavy chain, the short Ferritin H has various advantages. And Meyer teaches GG as a peptide linker that can be used in fusion protein/polypeptide.
A person of ordinary skilled in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Nam et al, Lee et al, Kim et al and Meyer to develop a ferritin nanocage comprising a fusion polypeptide, wherein the fusion polypeptide is PD-L1Pep-1 consisting of the amino acid sequence CLQKTPKQC (identical to the PD-L1-binding peptide of instant SEQ ID NO: 2) conjugated to the N-terminus of the short Ferritin H consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 in Kim et al (identical to the human ferritin heavy chain fragment of instant SEQ ID NO: 1) via a linker consisting of the amino acid sequence GG, and wherein the PD-L1Pep-1 is on the outer surface of the ferritin nanocage.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
15. Applicant argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation that the claimed N-terminal nanocage would bind PD-L1, and the requisite reasonable expectation of success is absent.”; “The proposed combination is supported only by impermissible hindsight.”; and “Meyer is non-analogous art.” Applicant further argues that “The claimed invention yields unexpected results”.
16. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
In response to Applicant's arguments about instant rejection, the Examiner agrees that none of the cited references individually teaches or suggests the ferritin nanocage recited in instant claims 1 and 4; and none of the cited references anticipates the ferritin nanocage recited in instant claims 1 and 4. However, the Examiner would like to point out that instant claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness type), and the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Nam et al, Lee et al, Kim et al and Meyer, it is not necessary for each of the cited references to teach all the limitations of instant claims. Furthermore, the Examiner would like to point out that the MPEP states "One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references…" (see MPEP § 2145 IV).
In response to Applicant's arguments that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation that the claimed N-terminal nanocage would bind PD-L1, and the requisite reasonable expectation of success is absent.”:
First, it appears to the Examiner that Applicant’s arguments are solely based on Applicant’s statements that PpCF fails to bind to PD-L1 at all. However, in the instant case, as stated in Section 10 above, based on instant Figure 3A, a lower amount of PpCF than of PpNF does bind to MDA-MB231 cells. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that PpCF fails to bind to PD-L1 at all are unpersuasive.
Second, as stated in the Advisory action dated 7/6/2026, both the single chain-based antibody targeting PD-1/PD-L1 in Nam et al and the PD-L1Pep-1 consisting of the amino acid sequence CLQKTPKQC (identical to the PD-L1-binding peptide of instant SEQ ID NO: 2) in Lee et al block the interaction between PD-1 and its ligand PD-L1 and can be used in cancer immunotherapy. Therefore, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect replacing the single chain-based antibody targeting PD-1/PD-L1 in Nam et al with the PD-L1Pep-1 in Lee et al would result in a ferritin nanocage targeting PD-1/PD-L1 as an immunotherapeutic agent. The Examiner understands the PD-L1Pep-1 in Lee et al is tested as a free peptide. However, in the instant case, other than statements/arguments, Applicant fails to provide any evidence that a ferritin nanocage having the PD-L1Pep-1 in Lee et al on its surface would not bind to PD-L1.
Taken all these together, in the instant case, in view of the combined teachings of the cited prior art references as set forth in Section 14 above, a person of ordinary skilled in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in developing the ferritin nanocage recited in instant claims 1 and 4.
In addition, with regards to the expectation of success, the MPEP states: “Absolute predictability is not a necessary prerequisite to a case of obviousness. Rather, a degree of predictability that one of ordinary skill would have found to be reasonable is sufficient. The Federal Circuit concluded that “[g]ood science and useful contributions do not necessarily result in patentability.” Id. at 1364, 83 USPQ2d at 1304.” (see MPEP § 2145).
In response to Applicant’s arguments about impermissible hindsight, as stated in the Final office action dated 5/6/2026, in the instant case, Applicant fails to point to any facet of instant rejection that is not found in the cited prior art references. It is unclear to the Examiner which part of the instant rejection is not based on the combined teachings of the cited references. Merely pointing out the differences between each of the cited references and instant claimed invention is not proof of hindsight reasoning. Furthermore, the MPEP states “"[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).” (see MPEP § 2145).
In response to Applicant's arguments that “Meyer is non-analogous art.”, as stated in the Final office action dated 5/6/2026, the Examiner understands that Meyer does not teach ferritin nanocage. However, in the instant case, both Meyer and instant application are in the same field of applying fusion protein comprising the active peptide for drug delivery. Therefore, the teachings of Meyer are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor; and Meyer is an analogous art.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that “The claimed invention yields unexpected results”, these have been addressed in Section 10 above.
Taken all these together, the rejection is deemed proper and is hereby maintained.
Obviousness Double Patenting
17. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
18. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claims 1 and 4 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of US patent 11306119 B2 and in view of the combined teachings of Nam et al (US 2019/0216947 A1, cited and enclosed in the previous office actions), Lee et al (WO 2019117690 A1, filed with IDS, a clear copy of the machine translation is used and enclosed in the previous office actions, pages 1-42), Kim et al (US 2018/0291072 A1, filed with IDS) and Meyer (EP1884521 A1, cited and enclosed in the previous office actions).
19. Instant claims 1 and 4 are drawn to a ferritin nanocage comprising a fusion polypeptide, wherein the fusion polypeptide is a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-binding peptide consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 conjugated, via a linker consisting of the amino acid sequence GG, to an N-terminus of a human ferritin heavy chain fragment consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.
20. Claims 1-8 of US patent 11306119 B2 are drawn to a peptide that specifically binds to PD-L1, consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 or SEQ ID NO:
2; and methods of using such peptide for diagnosing, preventing or treating cancer .
The PD-L1 binding peptide of SEQ ID NO: 1 recited in claims 1-8 of US patent 11306119 B2 is identical to the PD-L1 binding peptide of instant SEQ ID NO: 2.
21. The difference between claims 1-8 of US patent 11306119 B2 and the ferritin nanocage recited in instant claims 1 and 4 is that they do not teach fusing such PD-L1 binding peptide to the N-terminus of a human ferritin heavy chain fragment consisting of the amino acid sequence of instant SEQ ID NO: 1 via a GG linker.
However, in view of the combined teachings of Nam et al, Lee et al, Kim et al and Meyer as set forth in Section 14 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the PD-L1 binding peptide of SEQ ID NO: 1 recited in claims 1-8 of US patent 11306119 B2 and develop the ferritin nanocage recited in instant claims 1 and 4.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
22. Applicant argues that “Applicant submits a Terminal Disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c) over US Patent 11,306,119 B2”.
23. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
As stated in Section 9 above, the terminal disclaimer filed on 7/12/2026 has been disapproved. Therefore, until a proper terminal disclaimer is filed and approved by the Office, the double patenting rejection is hereby maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LI N KOMATSU whose telephone number is (571)270-3534. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm 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 on 5712707430. 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.
/LI N KOMATSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights