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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/016445 which claims the benefit of US Provisional Applications 63/186,565 and 63/149,973 with an effective filing date of 16 February 2021 as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 12 January 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 states “administered to the subject immediately”. The time frame for “immediately” is not defined in the instant specification. The instant specification states the nearest time frame for administration to immediately is “within about 20 minutes”, see Pg. 2, Lns. 10-15. The instant specification Pg. 8, Lns. 7-10 define “about” as “to encompass variations of ±20%”. Therefore, immediately is herein interpreted as -20% of 20 minutes which equates to less than 16 minutes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jost et al. (“Screening of the chemoprotective effect of 13 compounds and their mixtures with sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate against 2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfide”, published 17 June 2019, Journal of Applied Biomedicine, Pgs. 136-145, hereinafter Jost) in view of Veress (US20190054077, published 21 February 2019, hereinafter Veress), as evidenced by Nair et al., (“A simple practice guide for dose conversion between animals and human”, published March-May 2016, Vol. 7, Iss. 2, Pgs. 27-31).
Jost is in the known prior art field of mixtures of compounds useful in treating toxic gas poisoning, such as sulfur mustard and 2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfide (CEES) gas poisoning, see Abstract; Pg. 136, Introduction. The successful drug combination with sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate (MESNA) is useful in preventing initial DNA damage, mitigating indirect inflammation-mediated tissue damage, and additional damage induced by CEES by providing protective synergy against damage and other symptoms associated with toxic gas poisoning, see Abstract; Pg. 136, Introduction; Pg. 142, Col. 2; Pgs. 143-144, Conclusions.
Regarding instant application claims 1 and 3, Jost teaches the chemoprotective potential of a combination of different substances which provide protective synergy with sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate (MESNA) against CEES-induced geno- and cytotoxicity in subject MESNA treated human lung cell line A-549 exposed to CEES, see Abstract; Pg. 138, Experimental design; Pgs. 143-144, Conclusions. The testing of Jost mimics the injury of human lung epithelial cells as a possible route of poisoning from blistering agents, see Pg. 137, Col. 2, Last Para., and successful drug combinations are to be utilized in human patients, see Pg. 142, Col. 2, Last Para.; Pg. 143, Col. 1, Last Para.; Pgs. 143-144, Conclusions, meeting:
The method of treating exposure to toxic chemicals, such as CEES, with the therapeutic agent 2-mercaptoethane sulfonic acid, or a salt or solvate thereof limitations in instant application claim 1; and,
The specific toxic chemical limitation in instant application claim 3.
Regarding instant application claims 2 and 4-10, Jost teaches the therapeutic agent is 2-mercaptoethane sulfonic acid, or a salt or solvate thereof or sodium 2-mercaptoethane sulfonate, or a solvate thereof, see Abstract; Pg. 138, Experimental design; Pgs. 143-144, Conclusions, meeting:
The therapeutic agent limitations in instant application claims 2 and 4-10.
Jost does not teach:
The specific administration of the therapeutic agent to a subject after exposure to a toxic inhaled chemical in instant application claim 1;
The administration routes, dosage ranges, dosage time frames, and dosage regimens in instant application claims 4 and 8-10;
The method improves and prevents limitations in instant application claims 19 and 20; and,
The subject in instant application claims 21 and 22.
Veress is in the known prior art field of mixtures of compounds useful in treating toxic gas poisoning, such as chlorine gas poisoning, see Abstract; Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0065], where the compounds and/or compositions contemplated within the invention are useful within the methods of the invention in combination with at least one additional agent to create a synergistic effect when administered to a subject to treat toxic gas inhalation, see Paras. [0017];[0097]-[0098].
Regarding instant application claims 1, 3, 4, and 20-22, Veress teaches a method of treating a human exposed to chlorine gas inhalation, the method comprising administering to the human mammal via intramuscular, oral, rectal intratracheally, and intravenously a therapeutically effective amount of at least one agent, or a salt or solvate thereof, see Paras. [0009]-[0011];[0016];[0096], meeting:
The method of toxic inhalation treatment in instant application claim 1;
The specific toxic chemical inhaled in instant application claim 3;
The administration route in instant application claim 4; and,
The human mammal subject in instant application claim 21 and in instant application claim 22.
Regarding instant application claims 8-10, Veress teaches the therapeutic agent is administered within or at about 15 minutes after the chlorine exposure and the agent is further administered about 2 hours after the chlorine exposure, see Paras. [0095];[0134], where the best effective minimal dose is given at varying times after exposure, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60 minutes, to define the most effective time-frame, see Para. [0142], and dosing is in multiple doses 4 or more times per day, see Paras. [0104];[0122]-[0123], i.e., 6 times a day equates to every 4 hours. Veress also teaches “about” is defined as ±20%, see Para. [0071], as calculated by the examiner about 15 minutes +20% is 18 minutes which is within the range of the instant application claim 9 range of “about 20 minutes”, meeting within the administration to exposure time ranges in instant application claim 8, in instant application claim 9, and in instant application claim 10.
Veress also teaches the therapeutic agent is administered orally or intravenously at a dosing range from about 0.1-5000 mg/kg, where “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would be able to study the relevant factors and make the determination regarding the effective amount of the therapeutic compound without undue experimentation”, see Paras. [0096];[0099]-[0102], as calculated by the examiner based on Table 1 of Nair et al. (“A simple practice guide for dose conversion between animals and human”, published March-May 2016, Vol. 7, Iss. 2, Pgs. 27-31), about 3.7 mg/m2 to about 185000 mg/m2.
Regarding instant application claim 19, Veress teaches the administration protocol increases survival, see Paras. [0014]-[0015]; Table 2, meeting the increase in survival in instant application claim 19.
Regarding instant application claim 20, Veress teaches the administration protocol decreases lung coagulation, see Paras. [0138];[0152]-[0153]; Table 2, meeting the decrease in airway coagulation in instant application claim 20.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jost to use the administration routes, dosage ranges, dosage time frames, and dosage regimens to treat the subject as taught by Veress with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently preventing mortality in those exposed to harmful levels of inhaled toxic gases by mitigating lung tissue inflammation and other damage after exposure to the toxic gas, see Veress, Paras. [0005]-[0008];[0092];[0138]-[0139].
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and both Jost and Veress teach the use of combinations of mixtures of therapeutics to treat toxic gas poisoning, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Jost by relying upon the administration procedures of Veress before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the toxic gas poisoning art regarding administration routes, dosage ranges, dosage time frames, and dosage regimens to treat the subject, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently preventing mortality in those exposed to harmful levels of inhaled toxic gases by mitigating lung tissue inflammation and other damage after exposure to the toxic gas, see Veress, Paras. [0005]-[0008];[0092];[0138]-[0139] and MPEP 2141.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Since “a prima facie case of obviousness exists” where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” and where the claimed ranges or amounts “do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”, see MPEP 2144.05, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would be motivated to predictably determine the frequency of administration of the various compositions to the individual, the dosage regime applied, and the precise dosage applied in order to apply dosages for periods of time effective to treat toxic gas inhalation, see Veress, Paras. [0017];[0100];[0104].
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as administration routes, dosage ranges, dosage time frames, and dosage regimens, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jost et al. (“Screening of the chemoprotective effect of 13 compounds and their mixtures with sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate against 2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfide”, published 17 June 2019, Journal of Applied Biomedicine, Pgs. 136-145, hereinafter Jost) in view of Day et al. (US20110136775, published 09 June 2011, hereinafter Day), as evidenced by Nair et al., (“A simple practice guide for dose conversion between animals and human”, published March-May 2016, Vol. 7, Iss. 2, Pgs. 27-31).
Regarding instant application claims 1 and 5-7, Jost is in the known prior art field of mixtures of compounds useful in treating toxic gas poisoning, such as sulfur mustard and 2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfide (CEES) gas poisoning, see Abstract; Pg. 136, Introduction. The successful drug combination with sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate (MESNA) is useful in preventing initial DNA damage, mitigating indirect inflammation-mediated tissue damage, and additional damage induced by CEES by providing protective synergy against DNA damage and other symptoms associated with toxic gas poisoning, see Abstract; Pg. 136, Introduction; Pg. 142, Col. 2; Pgs. 143-144, Conclusions, meeting the therapeutic agent 2-mercaptoethane sulfonic acid, or a salt or solvate thereof limitations in instant application claim 1, in instant application claim 5, instant application claim 6, and instant application claim 7.
Jost does not teach:
The specific administration of the therapeutic agent to a subject after exposure to a toxic inhaled chemical in instant application claim 1; and,
The administration routes and dosage ranges in instant application claims 5-7.
Day is in the known prior art field of mixtures of compounds useful in treating toxic gas poisoning via inhalation of the toxic gas, such as sulfur mustards, CEES, and chlorine gas poisoning, see Abstract; Paras. [0005]-[0006];[0009]-[0010];[0033];[0121]-[0122].
Regarding instant application claim 1, Day teaches a method of treating a subject exposed to a toxic inhaled chemical, the method comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of therapeutic agent, see Paras. [0005]-[0010], meeting:
The method of toxic inhalation treatment in instant application claim 1.
Regarding instant application claims 5-7, Day teaches the therapeutic agent is administered orally or intravenously at a dosing range from about 0.01 to about 50 mg/kg/day, see Paras. [0123];[0137], as calculated by the examiner based on Table 1 of Nair et al. (“A simple practice guide for dose conversion between animals and human”, published March-May 2016, Vol. 7, Iss. 2, Pgs. 27-31), about 0.37 mg/m2 to about 1850 mg/m2, meeting:
Within the ranges and administration routes in instant application claim 5, in instant application claim 6, and in instant application claim 7.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jost to use the administration routes and dosage ranges to treat the subject as taught by Day with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently preventing further injury in those exposed to harmful levels of inhaled toxic gases by mitigating lung tissue inflammation, DNA damage, and other damage after exposure to the toxic gas, see Day, Paras. [0055];[0113]-[0117].
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and both Jost and Day teach the use of combinations of mixtures of therapeutics to treat toxic gas poisoning, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Jost by relying upon the administration procedures of Day before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the toxic gas poisoning art regarding administration routes, dosage ranges, dosage time frames, and dosage regimens to treat the subject, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently preventing further injury in those exposed to harmful levels of inhaled toxic gases by mitigating lung tissue inflammation, DNA damage, and other damage after exposure to the toxic gas, see Day, Paras. [0055];[0113]-[0117] and MPEP 2141.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Since “a prima facie case of obviousness exists” where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” and where the claimed ranges or amounts “do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”, see MPEP 2144.05, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would be motivated to predictably determine the dosage regime applied and the precise dosage applied in order to apply dosages for periods of time effective to treat toxic gas inhalation, see Day, Paras. [0092];[0137]-[0145].
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as administration routes, dosage ranges, dosage time frames, and dosage regimens, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 1 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jost et al. (“Screening of the chemoprotective effect of 13 compounds and their mixtures with sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate against 2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfide”, published 17 June 2019, Journal of Applied Biomedicine, Pgs. 136-145, hereinafter Jost) in view of Veress (US20190054077, published 21 February 2019, hereinafter Veress), as applied to claims 1-4, 8-10, and 19-22 in the 35 USC 103 rejection above, in further view of White et al. (US20150322421, published 12 November 2015, hereinafter White).
As stated above, Jost is in the known prior art field of mixtures of compounds useful in treating toxic gas poisoning, such as sulfur mustard and 2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfide (CEES) gas poisoning, see Abstract; Pg. 136, Introduction. The successful drug combination with sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate (MESNA) is useful in preventing initial DNA damage, mitigating indirect inflammation-mediated tissue damage, and additional damage induced by CEES by providing protective synergy against DNA damage and other symptoms associated with toxic gas poisoning, see Abstract; Pg. 136, Introduction; Pg. 142, Col. 2; Pgs. 143-144, Conclusions.
Jost does not teach:
The administration routes, dosage ranges, dosage time frames, and dosage regimens in instant application claims 11 and 12; and,
The limitations of instant application claims 13-18.
Regarding instant application claims 11 and 12, Veress teaches the therapeutic agent is administered within or at about 15 minutes after the chlorine exposure and the agent is further administered about 2 hours after the chlorine exposure, see Paras. [0095];[0134], where the best effective minimal dose is given at varying times after exposure, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60 minutes, to define the most effective time-frame, see Para. [0142], and dosing is in multiple doses 4 or more times per day, see Paras. [0104];[0122]-[0123], i.e., 6 times a day equates to every 4 hours. Veress also teaches “about” is defined as ±20%, see Para. [0071], as calculated by the examiner about 15 minutes +20% is 18 minutes which is within the range of the instant application claim 9 range of “about 20 minutes” and the therapeutic agent is administered orally or intravenously at a dosing range from about 0.1-5000 mg/kg, where “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would be able to study the relevant factors and make the determination regarding the effective amount of the therapeutic compound without undue experimentation”, see Paras. [0096];[0099]-[0102], meeting:
Within the time range of the first dose and administration routes for the first, second and third doses in instant application claim 11 and in instant application claim 12.
White is in the known prior art field of treating toxic gas poisoning via inhalation, such as sulfur mustard (SM) and 2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfide (CEES) gas poisoning, in order to mitigate lung injury and mortality after exposure to SM, see Paras. [0004]-[0005];[0050]-[0053];[0072].
Regarding instant application claims 11 and 12, White teaches administering to the subject the therapeutic agent tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) immediately to within 0 hours after an initial exposure of the subject to the toxic inhaled chemical (TIC), and about every 4 hours thereafter, see Paras. [0010];[0014];[0052];[0058]-[0061], meeting the first immediate dosing, and the second and the third dosing every 4 hours in instant application claim 11 and in instant application claim 12.
Regarding instant application claims 13-15 and 18, White teaches administering to the subject the therapeutic agent tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) via intratracheal bronchoscopy delivery at a dosage of about 0.1 to 1.0 mg/kg/dose, see Paras. [0057]-[0058];[0063], within the range of tPA dosing, and the administration route in instant application claim 13, in instant application claim 14, in instant application claim 15, and in instant application claim 18.
Regarding instant application claim 16, White teaches administering to the subject the therapeutic agent tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) about 6 hours to about 24 hours after an initial exposure of the subject to the toxic inhaled chemical (TIC), see Para. [0059], meeting within the tPA treatment time range after exposure in instant application claim 16.
Regarding instant application claim 17, White teaches administering to the subject the therapeutic agent tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) when their oxygen saturation dropped below 85%, see Figs. 14, 18; Paras. [0030];[0034], meeting the tPA administration in instant application claim 17.
In reference to the above claims:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jost to use the administration routes, dosage ranges, dosage time frames, and dosage regimens to treat the subject as taught by Veress with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently preventing mortality in those exposed to harmful levels of inhaled toxic gases by mitigating lung tissue inflammation and other damage, see Veress, Paras. [0005]-[0008];[0092];[0138]-[0139]; and,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the therapeutic agent combinations of Jost to add the tPA therapeutic agent of White and to use the administration routes, dosage ranges, dosage time frames, and dosage regimens to treat the subject as taught by White with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently preventing mortality and mitigating lung injury in those exposed to harmful levels of inhaled toxic gases, see White, Paras. [0004]-[0005];[0050]-[0053];[0072].
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Jost, Veress, and White all teach the use of therapeutics to treat toxic gas poisoning, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Jost by relying upon the procedures of Veress and White before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the toxic gas poisoning art regarding effective therapeutics to create a synergistic effect, administration routes, dosage ranges, dosage time frames, and dosage regimens to treat the subject, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently preventing mortality in those exposed to harmful levels of inhaled toxic gases by mitigating lung tissue inflammation, lung damage, and DNA damage after exposure to the toxic gas, see Veress, Paras. [0005]-[0008];[0092];[0098];[0138]-[0139]; White, Paras. [0004]-[0005];[0050]-[0053];[0072]; and MPEP 2141.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Since “a prima facie case of obviousness exists” where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” and where the claimed ranges or amounts “do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”, see MPEP 2144.05, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would be motivated to predictably determine the frequency of administration of the various compositions to the individual, the dosage regime applied, and the precise dosage applied in order to apply dosages for periods of time effective to treat toxic gas inhalation, see Veress, Paras. [0017];[0100];[0104].
Selection of a known material, such as therapeutic agent proven effective for preventing mortality in those exposed to harmful levels of inhaled toxic gases, based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as administration routes, dosage ranges, dosage time frames, and dosage regimens, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Y. Lynnette Kelly-O'Neill whose telephone number is (571)270-3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8 a.m. - 6 p.m., EST, with Flex Time.
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, Scarlett Yen-Ye Goon can be reached at (571) 270-5241. 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.
/YO/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699