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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the following species
PNG
media_image1.png
192
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed on 2 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner’s rationale regarding lack of unity based upon Dzhill et al. (RU 256862 C2) is incorrect. This is not found persuasive because there is a lack of unity as the claims lack an inventive step in view of Dudkin et al. (WO 2019/125982 A1) in view of Romoren et al. (US 2019/0192660 A1). Reasons why this is the case are explained in greater detail in the obviousness rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper but is not made final because the rationale regarding the restriction requirement has changed.
No claim is withdrawn due to the species election.
Note Regarding Radioactivity Units
The instant claims recite units measuring the amount of radioactivity in MBq (i.e. megaBecquerel). The examiner notes that various prior art references recite radioactivity in units such as millicurie or microcurie. As best understood by the examiner, the conversion of units is such that 1 curie is 37 GBq. As such 1 millicurie is 37 MBq, and 1000 microcuries equal 37 MBq. See e.g. Taylor et al. (US 2005/0233955 A1), paragraph 0104. As such, the 60 MBq recited by claim 1 is about 1622 microcurie or 1.622 millicurie, and the 5 MBq recited by claim 1 is about 135 to 136 microcurie.
Claim Interpretation – Part 1
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “step of” in claim 1 on the second line of the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Interpretation – Part 2
Claim 1 recites the following, which is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
54
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is understood to require that one, two or three of R22, R23, R24, R25, and R26 are hydroxyl groups. The remaining two, three, four or five groups of R22, R23, R24, R25, and R26 are understood to be hydrogens.
Claim Interpretation – Part 3
The examiner notes that claim 1 recites both a ligand and an additive. The examiner clarifies that the ligand and additive are understood to be separate compounds that are not covalently bound together.
As best understood by the examiner, a prior art teaching of the elected species, which is referred to as DOTAGA-DBCO, would read on the required ligand.
As best understood by the examiner, a prior art teaching of gentisic acid would read on the required additive. Gentisic acid has the following chemical structure, as of Janssen et al. (US 2009/0005595 A1), page 3, relevant figure reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
146
136
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This structure reads on the additive of claim 1 in the case wherein R21 is carboxyl, R22 and R25 are hydroxyl, and R22, R23, and R26 are hydrogen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Obviousness
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudkin et al. (WO 2019/125982 A1) in view of Romoren et al. (US 2019/0192660 A1).
Dudkin et al. (hereafter referred to as Dudkin) is drawn to radioactive labeling of polypeptides, as of Dudkin, title and abstract. Dudkin teaches the following method, as of figure 2, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image4.png
326
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound appears to have been referred to as DOTA-GA-DBCO by Dudkin. Dudkin also teaches a process of making this, as of page 47, first two paragraphs, wherein Dudkin points out the use of oxalic acid on page 47, line 5.
PNG
media_image5.png
240
648
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Dudkin differs from the claimed invention because the oxalic acid of Dudkin does not read on the chemical structure (II) that is required of the additive.
Romoren et al. (hereafter referred to as Romoren) is drawn to a method of making a radiopharmaceutical, as of Romoren, title and abstract. Romoren teaches the following, as of paragraph 0007, reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image6.png
182
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Romoren does not teach the required ligand.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted gentisic acid, as of Romoren, in place of the oxalic acid as of Dudkin to be used in the method of Dudkin. Dudkin is drawn to a method that utilizes oxalic acid as an excipient. Romoren teaches that gentisic acid can be used in place of oxalic acid for reducing pH in methods involving radiopharmaceuticals. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have substituted the gentisic acid of Romoren in place of the oxalic acid of Dudkin for predictable formation of the zirconium-ligand complex taught by Dudkin with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 1, Dudkin appears to use less radioactive zirconium as compared with the claimed requirements. See Dudkin, page 47, first paragraph, reproduced below with annotation by the examiner pointing to radioactivity measurements.
PNG
media_image7.png
240
648
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The value of 290 microcurie is about 10.73 MBq, and the value of 248 microcurie is about 9.176 MBq. These values appear to be lower than the claimed amount of 60 MBq and potentially lower than the requirement of 5 MBq per 1 nanomole of ligand. Nevertheless, as to claim 1, differences in concentration between the claimed invention and the prior art will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the measurement of radioactivity is effectively a measurement of the amount or concentration of radioactive element; as such the difference in radioactivity between the prior art and claimed invention is effectively a difference in amount or concentration. As no evidence of criticality has been provided to the record, the difference in concentration of the radioactive element between the claimed invention and prior art is insufficient to overcome the applied prima facie case of obviousness. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the general conditions of a method of combining radioactive zirconium with DOTA-GA-DBCO has been taught by the prior art; as such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum amount of radioactive zirconium via routine experimentation.
In the alternative as to claim 1, the examiner notes that mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As best understood by the examiner, the claimed invention appears to be a scaled up version of the process of Dudkin. This is because the ingredients in Dudkin and the instantly claimed method appear to be the same ingredients; however, these ingredients are used in larger amounts in the instantly claimed method as compared with the prior art. As such, the claimed invention appears to scale up the process of Dudkin. This is not sufficient to overcome the applied rejection.
As to claim 2, upon describing the example on page 47, top paragraph of Dudkin, it appears that Dudkin is silent as to the pH of the reaction mixture. Nevertheless, Dudkin does appear to teach oxalic acid, as of Dudkin, page 47, line 5. This would have motivated the skilled artisan to have used an acidic pH during the synthesis method. Also, elsewhere in the reference, Dudkin teaches a pH of 6-6.5 on page 46, line 24. This overlaps with the required pH range. While the prior art does not disclose the exact claimed values, but does overlap: in such instances even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
As to claim 3, Dudkin teaches a pH of 6-6.5, as of Dudkin, page 46, line 24, reproduced above. This overlaps with the required range of at pH of 2.0 to 6.0. While the prior art does not disclose the exact claimed values, but does overlap: in such instances even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
As to claim 4, this claim requires a first limitation drawn to the chemical structure of the additive and a second step drawn to the pH. Regarding the first step of claim 4, the gentisic acid of Romoren is understood to read on this requirement. Regarding the second step of claim 4, this limitation is met by Dudkin, page 46 line 24; see the rejection of claim 3 above.
As to claim 5, this claim requires a first limitation drawn to the chemical structure of the additive and a second step drawn to the amount of radioactivity. Regarding the first step of claim 4, the gentisic acid of Romoren is understood to read on this requirement. Regarding the second step of claim 5, the optimization rationale under MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and the rationale regarding scale-up under MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) applied to claim 1 also applies to claim 5.
As to claims 6-7, these claims, like claim 5, require a first limitation drawn to the chemical structure of the additive and a second step drawn to the amount of radioactivity. As such, claims 6-7 are rejected for essentially the same reason as claim 5 was rejected.
As to claim 8, Dudkin’s teaching of 1.0 M HEPES on page 47 line 12 is understood to read on the required 2-[4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazinyl)ethanesulfonic acid reads on the additional requirement of claim 8.
As to claim 9, Dudkin’s teaching of 1.0 M HEPES on page 47 line 12 is understood to read on the required 2-[4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazinyl)ethanesulfonic acid reads on the additional requirement of claim 9. Specifically, the examiner notes that 1 M is 1 mol/L, which is within the claim scope of the concentration required by claim 9.
As to claims 9-10, Romoren teaches acetic acid in paragraph 0007.
As to claim 11, Dudkin teaches heating to 90°C, as of Dudkin, page 47 line 15.
As to claim 12, Dudkin’s teaching of the elected species is understood to read on the additional requirements of this claim.
As to claim 13, Dudkin teaches an antibody, as of figure 2, reproduced above.
As to claim 14, Dudkin teaches an azido group attached to the antibody and an alkyne group that is part of the recited compound, as of Dudkin, figure 2, reproduced above. These link to form a 1,2,3-triazole group, as of Dudkin, figure 2, reproduced above.
As to claim 15, this claim requires two separate limitations. The first is that the radioactive zirconium is coordinated to the ligand. This is taught as of the top half of figure 2, reproduced above, wherein the alkyne moiety reads on the reactive atomic group. The second limitation is that the reactive atomic group reacts with the targeting ligand. This is taught as of the bottom half of figure 2.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/249,837 (reference application) in view of Janssen et al. (US 2009/0005595 A1).
The instant claims are drawn to a method for producing a radioactive zirconium complex. This method entails combining the radioactive zirconium ion with a ligand in the presence of an additive having a particular chemical structure of formula (2).
The copending claims are drawn to a method for producing a radioactive zirconium complex. This method entails combining the radioactive zirconium ion with a ligand and a water-soluble organic compound having a particular chemical structure with one or two carboxy groups. Copending claims 6-7 recite a particular ligand; this appears to be the same ligand as required by instant claim 1.
The copending claims fail to teach an additive having the structure of formula (2).
Janssen et al. (hereafter referred to as Janssen) is drawn to a composition comprising gentisic acid and radiopharmaceuticals, as of Janssen, title and abstract. Janssen teaches the following chemical structure of gentisic acid, as of Janssen, page 3, relevant figure reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
146
136
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used gentisic acid, as of Janssen, as the water-soluble organic compound in the method of the copending claims. The method of the copending claims recites a water-soluble organic compound having one or two carboxy groups. Janssen teaches that gentisic acid is a water-soluble compound with one carboxy group, as of the above-reproduced figure. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have used the gentisic acid of Janssen as the water-soluble compound in the copending claims in order to have predictably used a chemical compound having a carboxyl group with a reasonable expectation of success.
The copending claims also do not recite the amount of radioactivity in MBq, which is required by the instant claims. Nevertheless, differences in concentration between the claimed invention and the subject matter of the copending claims will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the copending claims unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the measurement of radioactivity is effectively a measurement of the radioactive element; as such the difference in radioactivity between the prior art and claimed invention is effectively a difference in concentration. As no evidence of criticality has been provided to the record, the difference in concentration of the radioactive element between the claimed invention and prior art is insufficient to overcome the applied prima facie case of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the general conditions of a method of combining radioactive zirconium with the ligand has been recited by the copending claims; as such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum amount of radioactive zirconium via routine experimentation. Also see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). This results in a prima facie case of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/859,659 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
The instant claims are drawn to a method for producing a radioactive zirconium complex. This method entails combining the radioactive zirconium ion with a ligand in the presence of an additive having a particular chemical structure of formula (2).
Copending claim 1 recites a method of forming a complex of a radioactive metal nuclide with a ligand, as of copending claim 1. The radioactive metal nuclide may be an isotope of zirconium, as of copending claim 3. The method may entail the use of a stabilizer which may be gentisic acid, as of copending claims 4-5, this is understood to read on the required additive.
The copending claims also do not recite the amount of radioactivity in MBq, which is required by the instant claims. Nevertheless, differences in concentration between the claimed invention and the subject matter of the copending claims will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the copending claims unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the measurement of radioactivity is effectively a measurement of the radioactive element; as such the difference in radioactivity between the prior art and claimed invention is effectively a difference in concentration. As no evidence of criticality has been provided to the record, the difference in concentration of the radioactive element between the claimed invention and prior art is insufficient to overcome the applied prima facie case of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the general conditions of a method of combining radioactive zirconium with the ligand has been recited by the copending claims; as such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum amount of radioactive zirconium via routine experimentation. Also see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). This results in a prima facie case of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Note Regarding Comparative Testing in the Specification
The examiner reviewed the instant application and noted comparative testing. In order to best achieve compact prosecution, the examiner has included this section of the office action to address comparative testing in the instant specification.
The instant specification discloses the following comparative testing, as of page 29 of the substitute specification of 20 April 2023, relevant text reproduced below from the top of the page.
PNG
media_image8.png
320
612
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The above-reproduced text describes an inventive example comprising mixing radioactive zirconium, ligand, and genistic acid. The above-reproduced text also describes a comparative example comprising a method of mixing radioactive zirconium and ligand in the absence of genistic acid.
In order to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness based upon unexpected results, the claimed invention must be compared with the closest subject matter that actually exists in the prior art. See MPEP 716.02(e). In this case, it is the examiner’s position that the comparative example is not as close to the claimed invention as is the example of Dudkin relied upon in the above-applied obviousness rejection. This is because the example of Dudkin, as of Dudkin, page 47, top of page, comprised radioactive zirconium, ligand, and oxalic acid, which is an acid but which is different from the claimed invention. In contrast, the comparative example comprises mixing radioactive zirconium and ligand, but with no acid at all. As such, Dudkin’s use of oxalic acid renders the method of Dudkin to be closer to the claimed method than is the comparative method. As such, the comparative testing present in the instant application is insufficient to overcome the applied prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC SHOMER whose telephone number is (571)270-7671. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM Monday Through Friday.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at (571)272-6897. 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.
ISAAC . SHOMER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1612
/ISAAC SHOMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612