Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 18 Sept 2024, wherein Applicant amended claims 12 and 13, cancelled claims 1-11 and 14-34, and added new claims 35-43.
Claims 12-13 and 35-43 are being considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statements filed 19 May 2023, 23 December 2024, 04 March 2025, 22 March 2025, 02 April 2025, 09 April 2025, 06 May 2025, and 29 July 2025 and the references cited therein have been considered, unless indicated otherwise.
The reference, Palefsky et al. (see IDS filed 19 May 2023, 4 pages), is lined through because no copy was provided.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
4. REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
5. Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). See ¶ [0189] - [0191] and
¶ [0201].
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Sequence identifiers for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings. See Figures 2-6.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Replacement and annotated drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specification
6. The use of the terms ‘GARDSIL’ and ‘CERVARIX’ in ¶ [0009], which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Note that ‘GARDSIL’ and ‘CERVARIX’ are merely examples and all improper uses of trademarks in the specification should be identified by Applicant and properly addressed.
Claim Interpretation
7. In accordance to the instant specification, Examiner is interpreting any use of singular words to include plurals unless stated otherwise (¶ [0034]), as well as any use of ‘or’ to mean ‘and/or’ unless stated otherwise (¶ [0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 12-13 and 35-43 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.
The term ‘engineering’ in claims 12-13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ‘engineering’ 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.
Claims 13 and 35-43, which are dependent on claim 12, are similarly rejected.
Claim 35, which is dependent on claim 13, is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 35, the order of steps is unclear. For purposes of further examination, Examiner is interpreting this claim to be a final step in the method. Additionally, ‘evaluating’ is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ‘evaluating’ 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. For purposes of further examination, Examiner is interpreting this term to mean a mental evaluation of the properties, taking into account the results of the analytical techniques in claim 13.
10. 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.
11. Claims 12-13 and 35-43 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.
When establishing a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejection, the burden is on the
Examiner to set forth a prima facie case providing reasons why the specification is deficient and thus the
claims that relies thereon are rejected. It is important to note that each claim is given its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description (see MPEP 2111 and
2163(II)). Additionally, a full review of the application must be done to understand how the applicant
provides support for the claimed invention during each element and/or step, which includes the
specification, drawings, structural chemical formulas, etc. (see MPEP 2163(II)). Finally, a determination
as to whether the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing is made by
considering (see MPEP 2163(II)):
1) The variety of ways that that applicant may show possession,
2) The level of skill and knowledge in the art, and
3) The predictability in the art.
12. Claim 12 is drawn to the possession of all possible modifications compared to any naturally-occurring HPV6 or HPV11 polypeptide that has oncogenic or replication functionality. The
specification does not provide support for a representative number of species for making the modifications, as claimed. Additionally, the supplemental information (e.g, the drawings), only provide workflow and 3D modeling information.
Procedure is a brief discussion of what is required in a specification to satisfy the 35 U.S.C. 112 written description requirement for a generic claim covering several distinct inventions:
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice..., reduction to drawings..., or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus... See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. 'A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
Thus, when a claim covers a genus of inventions, the specification must provide written description support for the entire scope of the genus. Support for a genus is generally found where the applicant has provided a number of examples sufficient so that one in the art would recognize from the specification the scope of what is being claimed.
At the time of filing, there were in silico methods of identifying epitopes for HPV vaccine design in Hosseini (Viral Immunol., 1 April 2017, 30(3)) (See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited), as well as mutated HPV6/11 E1 and E2 proteins that inactivate their natural functions in Gough (US 20070264283 A1; 15 November 2007) (See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited). However, these are a finite and clearly defined set of mutations. The instant claim specifies the correlation between structure and function, wherein the modification eliminates oncogenic biological function or the essential replication function. The instant claim also does not specify a limitation on the modification, which can be interpreted to mean any and all possible modifications under its broadest reasonable interpretation. However, it is known in the art that even a single amino acid medication can have an effect on protein function.
In view of the fact that the examples provided do not demonstrate possession of all possible mutations, the application has not identified working examples for identifying mutations, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would not have recognized the possession of all possible mutations, there is insufficient written description support for all possible mutations.
13. Claim 36 is drawn to the possession of a derivative polypeptide that induces an improved immune response compared to its naturally-occurring counterpart. The specification does not provide a method of making this determination. Additionally, the supplemental information (e.g., the drawings), only provide workflow and 3D modeling information.
At the time of filing, methods for testing derivative polypeptide immune response existed, as evidenced by Gough (US 20070264283 A1; 15 November 2007) (See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited), Fig. 15 and 16, where they show the immune response to a vaccine containing the derivative polypeptide vs the wild-type. However, it is not sufficient to assume that a derivative polypeptide would induce a greater immune response when compared to the wild-type without any study done to accompany this claim.
In view of the fact that the examples provided do not demonstrate possession of a derivative polypeptide with improved immune response, the application has no working examples of one, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would not have recognized the possession of a derivative polypeptide with improved immune response, there is insufficient written description support.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
14. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
15. Claims 13 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite ‘identifying’, ‘utilizing’, and ‘evaluating’. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth below. See MPEP 2106 for analysis framework.
The instant claims are drawn to a method with steps of applying analytical techniques to achieve results, with the final step being utilizing the results to design a polynucleotide sequence and evaluating the polynucleotide for various properties. As such, the instant claims are drawn to a process, which is statutory category of matter (Step 1: Yes).
The instant claims are drawn to a judicial exception of an abstract idea, more specifically a mental process. The step of evaluating could be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (e.g., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). Thus, the claim is directed to at least one exception, which may be termed as an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes). The instant claims are drawn solely to a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention is not used to provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Additionally, there does not appear to be any particular combination of steps or analytical techniques, these steps are conventional and known in the art, and do not amount to anything significantly more. Further, the claimed invention does not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way and there is no inventive concept in the claims. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as HPV vaccine development, is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and Example 29, Claim 2 (Diagnosing and Treating Julitis) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Life Sciences found at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-may-2016-ex.pdf)). Therefore, the instant claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2: No).
The instant claims are drawn to a judicial exception and do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: No).
In view of the foregoing, the instant claims do not constitute patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. 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.
(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.
17. Claims 12, 36-38, and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gough (US 20070264283 A1; 15 November 2007) (See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited).
Regarding claim 12, Gough teaches “Preferably the polynucleotide sequence encodes a HPV polypeptide of HPV type 6, 11, 16, 18, 33 or 45, most preferably type 11, sub-type 6a or sub-type 6b. […] the encoded amino acid sequence is a mutated HPV amino acid sequence comprising the wild-type sequence with amino acid changes, for example amino acid point mutations, sufficient to reduce or inactivate one or more of the natural biological functions of the polypeptide. The mutated amino acid sequence will desirably retain the immunogenicity of the wild-type polypeptide.” (¶ [0028]), “In the case of E1, the primary biological role is to initiate virus specific DNA replication in infected cells. It is preferred that E1 is mutated to inactivate its replication potential. The preferred mutations are:
G 482 D, K 83 G, R 84 G” (¶ [0030]), “In the case of E2, this is a site specific binding nuclear protein functioning as the primary replication origin recognition protein and assists in the assembly of the pre-initiation replication complex. It is preferred that the E2 protein is inactivated. A preferred mutation to achieve this objective is K 111 A.” (¶ [0033]), and “In a further aspect, the present invention provides a vaccine composition comprising a protein, or vector, or polynucleotide sequence of the invention. Preferably the vaccine composition comprises a DNA vector according to the present invention.”
(¶ [0035]). In summary, Gough teaches a mutation of the naturally-occurring HPV6/11 E1 and E2 proteins (which have roles in viral replication), in which this mutation inactivates the polypeptides’ natural function but retains their immunogenicity so that that they can be further used in a vaccine.
Regarding claim 36, Gough teaches two graphs, Fig. 15 and 16, which show the cellular immune response to the mutated E1 and E2 in mice. Both of these graphs show an increase in cellular immune response to the mutated polypeptides when compared to the wild type.
Regarding claims 37-38, Gough teaches “As discussed above, the present invention includes expression vectors that comprise the nucleotide sequences of the invention.” (¶ [0044]) and “Examples of suitable viral vectors include… adenoviruses… Replication-defective adenovirus vectors by contrast remain episomal and therefore allow transient expression. […] Preferred viral vectors are those derived from non-human primate adenovirus such as C68 chimp adenovirus (U.S. Pat. No. 6,083,716) otherwise known as Pan 9.” (¶ [0049]).
Regarding claims 41, Gough teaches “Promoters and other expression regulation signals may be selected to be compatible with the host cell for which expression is designed. […] Viral promoters such as the SV40 large T antigen promoter, human cytomegalovirus (CMV) immediate early (IE) promoter […] may also be used.” (¶ [0048]).
Regarding claims 42-43, Gough teaches the adenoviral vector as seen above, and “In alternative embodiments, the vaccine composition comprises a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient and a DNA vector according to the second aspect of the present invention. The vaccine composition may also include an adjuvant.” (¶ [0035])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. Claims 13 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gough (US 20070264283 A1; 15 November 2007) (See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited) as applied to claim 12 in section 17 above, and further in view of Hosseini (Viral Immunol., 1 April 2017, 30(3)) (See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited).
Regarding claims 13 and 35, Gough teaches the limitations of claim 12 (see section 17 above), including the identification of mutations that inactivate oncogenic activity and/or essential viral functions while preserving immunogenicity (¶ [0030] and ¶ [0033]). Gough does not teach the analytical techniques to identify the viral antigens. Hosseini teaches:
In silico prediction of in vivo antigen epitope recognition: “By the use of BCPred method in BCPREDS server of epitope regions in L1 and L2, protein sequences were determined. A total of 71 epitopes for L1 and 70 epitopes for L2 HPV serotypes were predicted. In the next step, epitopes with high score were used as candidates for application in vaccine construct (Table 2).” (Results, ¶ 1).
Amino acid sequence physiochemical property analysis: “The sequences of primary construct were analyzed in Expasy's ProtParam tool and results are presented in Table 6.” (Results, ¶ 5). These results include the molecular weight of the protein, number of amino acids, theorical pI, positively and negatively-charged residues, instability index, and AI, GRAVY.
Three-dimensional (3D) structure analysis: “After selection of epitopes, these epitopes were refined by the degree of solvent accessibility. […] For fulfillment it, the structure of the L1 and L2 proteins was needs. The crystal structures of L1 and L2 protein had not been determined before. For obtaining a 3D structure model of L1 proteins, the crystal structure of these proteins was used as PDB template in Swiss Model Alignment interface protein modeling server (10).” (Materials and Methods, ¶ 3).
Hosseini also teaches: “These epitope sequences fused together in a tandem… Check of antigenicity also revealed that major parts of new protein construct have hydrophilic property and thus harbor antigenic potency.” (Discussion). Thus, showing that they used the results of their analytical techniques to design the polynucleotide sequence as well as checking for immunogenicity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polypeptides and methods of Gough and apply the analytical methods of Hosseini to design the polypeptide sequence. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for applying the in silico analytical methods of Hosseini to the polypeptides and methods disclosed in Gough. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
20. Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gough (US 20070264283 A1; 15 November 2007) (See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited) as applied to claims 12 and 37 in section 17 above, and further in view of Burny (US 20200123571 A1; Provisional filed 29 September 2016) (See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited).
Regarding claims 39-40, Gough teaches the limitations of claims 12 and 37 (see section 17 above) such as using a replication-deficient adenovirus vector which can be derived from a non-human primate adenovirus, with Pan 9 as an example (¶ [0049]). Gough does not teach a gorilla adenoviral vector. Burny teaches “Accordingly, in one embodiment, a transgene comprising nucleic acid sequences encoding HPV E1, E2, E6 and/or E7 antigenic peptides, from multiple hrHPV types, is incorporated into a viral vector, such as an adenoviral vector, such as a nonhuman simian adenoviral vector. In one embodiment, the simian adenoviral vector is selected from a chimpanzee adenovirus such as… Pan 9. […] Adenoviral vectors may also be derived from adenoviruses isolated from gorillas…” (¶ [0473]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the methods of Gough and apply a replication-deficient gorilla adenoviral vector instead of a different non-human primate vector (in which both references gave an example of Pan 9). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using a replicant-deficient gorilla adenoviral vector instead of a different non-human primate vector. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Conclusion
21. No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA E LY whose telephone number is (571)272-5169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Janet Andres can be reached at (571)-272-0867. 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.
/KRISTINA E. LY/Examiner, Art Unit 1671
/M FRANCO G SALVOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672