DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-16) and the following species:
A live pathogen administered by mucosal administration of the previous vaccine
Spraying of the claimed vaccine
Above 10 kDa and below 300 kDa for the molecular weight of the mucoadhesive adjuvant
Below 6 pKa for the mucoadhesive adjuvant
NDV for the poultry pathogen
in the reply filed on 27 March 2026 is acknowledged. It is noted that “Alginate or polyalkylene oxide blockcopolymer” was elected for the mucoadhesive adjuvant, however the Requirement for Restriction/Election on page 5 required the election of a specific mucoadhesive adjuvant. Applicant should elect one mucoadhesive adjuvant in response to this action.
Claim Status
3. Claims 17-18 are canceled.
Claims 1-16 are under consideration.
Priority
4. The Instant Application is a National Stage (371) of PCT/EP2022/052811, filed 07 February 2022, which claims priority to EP21155675.8, filed 08 February 2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claims 1-16 are supported by EP21155675.8 and are thus granted the effective filing date of 08 February 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 27 March 2026, 19 August 2025, 02 June 2025, and 11 November 2024 were filed before the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
7. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
8. The use of the terms “Synperonic” on page 6 and “Nobilis” on page 14, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
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 these are merely examples and all improper uses of trademarks in the specification should be identified by Applicant and properly addressed.
Claim Objections
9. Claims 2-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-16, “characterized in that” should be rewritten as “wherein”.
Regarding claim 5, the “a” in "a non-live antigen", "a poultry pathogen", and "a mucoadhesive adjuvant" should be "the".
Regarding claim 6, "ocular" should be "ocularly".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – Written Description
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following quotation from MPEP § 2163 is a brief discussion of what is required in a specification to satisfy the 35 U.S.C. 112 written description requirements 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. Therefore, 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.
The claims above are drawn to a method of boosting an immune response in a poultry animal, wherein a non-live poultry pathogen antigen is administered mucosally. Claims also recite administering a vaccine, which requires use of a composition that can prevent infection. This requires a composition that generates neutralizing antibodies. This also reads on administering any such poultry pathogen antigen mucosally to any poultry animal to achieve the required goals of the claims. The breadth of the recited claims far overreaches Applicant’s contribution as disclosed in the specification and one of ordinary skill cannot conclude that Applicant was in possession of the full breadth of the claims.
The specification shows multiple examples wherein Applicant demonstrated the mucosal administration of inactivated NDV, D78 (IBDV), Reo (ARV), and Salmonella as a booster dose in SPF chickens. The administration of the inactivated NDV were shown to result in the production of anti-NDV hemagglutination inhibiting antibodies, a type of neutralizing antibody. However, the results for the D78 (IBDV), Reo (ARV), and Salmonella do not indicate whether the antibodies were neutralizing or not. Additionally, the specification does not disclose any poultry pathogen antigens working for multiple different types of poultry. The teachings of the art also fail to indicate that, without such evidence, all poultry pathogen antigens would confer an immune response in multiple poultry when administered mucosally.
For example, a search of the art indicates that different poultry react differently to pathogens, even within the same species: “Clear differences in responses to vaccination were observed; the Muscovy ducks developed lower viral antibody titers induced by the same vaccination as Pekin ducks and presented with higher morbidity and mortality after challenge with an H5N1 HPAI virus. When comparing the response to infection in non-vaccinated ducks, differences were also observed, with infected Muscovy ducks presenting a lower mean death time and more severe neurological signs than Pekin ducks.” (Abstract) (Cagle, 02 September 2011, Vaccine, 29(38): 6549-6557). Schilling (10 May 2019, Nature Scientific Reports) further supports this: “We here examined the comparative transcriptional responses of innate immune genes to NDV infection in inbred sublines of the Fayoumi and Leghorn breeds known to differ in their relative susceptibility to infection as well as at the microchromosome bearing the major histocompatability complex (MHC) locus. The analysis identified a set of five core genes, Mx1, IRF1, IRF7, STAT1, and SOCS1, that are up-regulated regardless of subline. Several genes were differentially expressed in a breed- or subline-dependent manner. The breed-dependent response involved TLR3, NOS2, LITAF, and IFIH1 in the Fayoumi versus IL8, CAMP, and CCL4 in the Leghorn. Further analysis identified subline-dependent differences in the pro-inflammatory response within the Fayoumi breed that are likely influenced by the MHC. These results have identified conserved, breed-dependent, and subline-dependent innate immune responses to NDV infection in chickens…” (Abstract). Therefore, since there are differences in immune response even between different subspecies of the same species of poultry, there would also be significant uncertainty which pathogen antigens would be able to confer an immune response between multiple species of poultry.
Regarding the generation of neutralizing antibodies by the Reo (ARV) vaccine, Ayalew (15 June 2017, Sci. Rep., 7(3565)) teaches that when tested against emerging ARV variants, “These ARV field strains were genetically diverse and quite distant from the vaccine and vaccine related field strains. Antibodies produced against a commercial Reo 2177 ® vaccine did not neutralize these variants.” (Abstract). This vaccine is the same one used in Example 3 of the Instant Specification and therefore would not necessarily make neutralizing antibodies against every strain of ARV. Similarly, Eskin (24 September 2020, Pew) teaches that while Salmonella vaccine usage has increased since the 2010s (¶ 4), “few vaccines protect against more than one serotype, and eradication of one variety—through vaccination or other interventions—can allow other harmful strains to take hold in food animals and become larger threats to consumer health. For example, successful 20th century campaigns that targeted serotypes Gallinarum and Pullorum in U.S. chickens left a void that was filled by Enteriditis, a previously rare serotype that has become the most common source of human Salmonella infections.” (¶ 5). Therefore, there is uncertainty as to whether the vaccines that Applicant are in possession of would produce neutralizing antibodies against every strain of that pathogen.
Thus, in view of the above, there would have been significant uncertainty as to which poultry pathogen antigens would be able to be administered mucosally and produce neutralizing antibodies in just any type of poultry. In view of this uncertainty and the lack of sufficient examples of the claimed genus, the claims are rejected for lack of adequate written description support.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Winter (US 20220184198 A1; CON filed 28 July 2020).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, and 15-16, Winter teaches a “composition comprising inactivated antigens and at least one mucosal adjuvant, where the composition is formulated for administration to an avian.” (¶ [0005]), wherein the inactivated antigen may be derived from Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV) (¶ [0005]) and the adjuvant may be a mucoadhesive adjuvant (¶ [0049]). Winter teaches that the composition is mucosally administered by spraying and/or can be administered ocularly or nasally (¶ [0015]). Winter teaches that the inactivated vaccine can be applied mucosally in poultry (¶ [0045]). Winter further teaches that there may be a second administration that is administered between 0-6 weeks after administration of the initial dose, and may be delivered mucosally, such as by spraying, or paternally (¶ [0074]). Both the initial dose and the booster/second administration will result in an immune response. A second administration against the same pathogen will trigger the immune response’s memory and boost the antibodies response against the antigen that it was previously exposed to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter (US 20220184198 A1; CON filed 28 July 2020) in view of MSD (10 August 2020, Nobilis IB Multi+ ND + EDS).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, and 14-16, Winter teaches a “composition comprising inactivated antigens and at least one mucosal adjuvant, where the composition is formulated for administration to an avian.” (¶ [0005]), wherein the inactivated antigen may be derived from Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV) (¶ [0005]) and the adjuvant may be a mucoadhesive adjuvant (¶ [0049]). Winter teaches that the composition is mucosally administered by spraying and/or can be administered ocularly or nasally (¶ [0015]). Winter teaches that the inactivated vaccine can be applied mucosally in poultry (¶ [0045]). Winter further teaches that there may be a second administration that is administered between 0-6 weeks after administration of the initial dose, and may be delivered mucosally, such as by spraying, or paternally (¶ [0074]). Both the initial dose and the booster/second administration will result in an immune response. A second administration against the same pathogen will trigger the immune response’s memory and boost the antibodies response against the antigen that it was previously exposed to. Winter further teaches a large list of possible adjuvants (¶ [0049]) and that the composition can comprise 0.5% to 50% adjuvant (¶ [0015]). In addition, the amount of adjuvant, since it is an immunostimulant, is a result effective variable and so its amount and thus the claimed percentage thereof in the vaccine of the claims will be arrived at by routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Winter teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed supra. All discussions thereon incorporated here. Winter does not teach administering a live vaccine prior to the administration of a non-live booster. However, MSD teaches “For an optimal booster effect, the birds must be primed with live vaccines against Infectious Bronchitis and Newcastle Disease. […] The best results will be obtained if vaccination with inactivated vaccine takes place 6 or more weeks after administration of the live primer but in no circumstances should this be carried out earlier than 4 weeks after priming.” (Vaccination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date to administer a live vaccine mucosally prior to the administration of the vaccine taught by Winter in order to enhance the effect of the booster. A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference or combine reference teachings, and the modification or combination would have a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143, G. and 2143.02).
17. Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter (Supra) and MSD (Supra) as applied to claims 1-7 and 14-16 above, further in view of Sarei (2013, Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 75(4): 442-449), and as evidenced by Szekalska (28 December 2016, International Journal of Polymer Science, 2016(1)) and Choukaife (23 October 2020, Pharmaceuticals, 13(335): 1-34).
Regarding claim 13, Winter teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed supra. All discussions thereon incorporated here. Winter does not teach alginate as the mucoadhesive adjuvant. However, Sarei teaches that “Alginate is a natural, biodegradable, and mucoadhesive polymer that does not produce toxicity in administration. Alginate nanoparticles (NPs) as hydrophilic carriers prolong the antigen release and enhance the immunogenicity greater than traditional vaccines which is because of their adjuvant properties. Moreover, in nasal and oral administration because of mucoadhesive properties and enhancing permeability, they can reduce degradation in acidic environment. Also, alginate particles have not been observed to agglomerate in any of the major organs.” (Page 422, ¶ 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to take the method of Winter and further use alginate as the mucoadhesive adjuvant as it is not toxic, increases the half-life of antigens, and enhances immunogenicity, as taught by Sarei. A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference or combine reference teachings, and the modification or combination would have a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143, G. and 2143.02).
Regarding claims 8-12, Szekalska teaches that the molecular weight of alginates (ALG), varies between 33,000 and 400,000 g/mol (Page 1, ¶ 5). 1 g/mol = 1 Da, so this is equivalent to 33,000 to 400,000 Da. Szekalska further teaches that below a pKa of 3.38-3.65 may result in polymer precipitation (Page 2, ¶ 1) and Choukaife teaches that alginate’s natural pKa range is between 3.4-4.4 (7.6 The Influence of pKa, ¶ 1). A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference or combine reference teachings, and the modification or combination would have a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143, G. and 2143.02).
Double Patenting
18. 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.
19. Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-14 of copending Application No. 18/862,717 in view of Winter (US 20220184198 A1; CON filed 28 July 2020), MSD (10 August 2020, Nobilis IB Multi+ ND + EDS), Sarei (2013, Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 75(4): 442-449), Szekalska (28 December 2016, International Journal of Polymer Science, 2016(1)), and Choukaife (23 October 2020, Pharmaceuticals, 13(335): 1-34).
Claim 12 of ‘717 recites a method for inducing an immune response in poultry against a group of viruses which includes NDV, by administering a vaccine. Claims 13-14 recite a method for protecting against or reducing infection by administering the vaccine.
The claims of ‘717 do not recite if the vaccine is live or inactivated, or if the vaccine is a booster or primary dose. However, the combination of Winter, MSD, Sarei, Szekalska, and Choukaife render obvious claims 1-16 as discussed supra. All obviousness arguments above incorporated here. The addition of copending claims 12-14 of ‘717 only further support this obviousness and thus the prior art combined with said claims renders the instant claims above obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
20. Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/257,889 in view of Winter (US 20220184198 A1; CON filed 28 July 2020), MSD (10 August 2020, Nobilis IB Multi+ ND + EDS), Sarei (2013, Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 75(4): 442-449), Szekalska (28 December 2016, International Journal of Polymer Science, 2016(1)), and Choukaife (23 October 2020, Pharmaceuticals, 13(335): 1-34).
Claims 12 and 15 of ‘889 recites a method for preventing or reducing infection by NDV by administering a vaccine to poultry.
The claims of ‘889 do not recite if the vaccine is live or inactivated, or if the vaccine is a booster or primary dose. However, the combination of Winter, MSD, Sarei, Szekalska, and Choukaife render obvious claims 1-16 as discussed supra. All obviousness arguments above incorporated here. The addition of copending claims 12 and 15 of ‘889 only further support this obviousness and thus the prior art combined with said claims renders the instant claims above obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
21. Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,037,650 in view of Winter (US 20220184198 A1; CON filed 28 July 2020), MSD (10 August 2020, Nobilis IB Multi+ ND + EDS), Sarei (2013, Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 75(4): 442-449), Szekalska (28 December 2016, International Journal of Polymer Science, 2016(1)), and Choukaife (23 October 2020, Pharmaceuticals, 13(335): 1-34).
Claim 1 of ‘650 recites a live combined vaccine for immunizing against viral infectious diseases comprising IBV and another virus. Claims 2 and 8 of ‘650 recite that the additional virus can be NDV. Claim 4 of ‘650 recites a method of immunizing poultry by administering the vaccine.
The claims of ‘650 do not recite if the vaccine is a booster or primary dose. However, by interpreting it as the primary dose, the combination of Winter, MSD, Sarei, Szekalska, and Choukaife render obvious claims 1-16 as discussed supra. All obviousness arguments above incorporated here. The addition of claims 1-2, 4, and 8 of ‘650 only further support this obviousness and thus the prior art combined with said claims renders the instant claims above obvious.
22. Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,750,111 in view of Winter (US 20220184198 A1; CON filed 28 July 2020), MSD (10 August 2020, Nobilis IB Multi+ ND + EDS), Sarei (2013, Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 75(4): 442-449), Szekalska (28 December 2016, International Journal of Polymer Science, 2016(1)), and Choukaife (23 October 2020, Pharmaceuticals, 13(335): 1-34).
Claim 2 of ‘111 recites a vaccine for protection of poultry against ND comprising a NDV strain and pharmaceutical carrier. Claim 3 of ‘111 recites that the virus is in a live form. Claim 9 of ‘111 recites a method for controlling ND in poultry by administering the vaccine of claim 2 to birds.
The claims of ‘111 do not recite if the vaccine is a booster or primary dose. However, by interpreting it as the primary dose, the combination of Winter, MSD, Sarei, Szekalska, and Choukaife render obvious claims 1-16 as discussed supra. All obviousness arguments above incorporated here. The addition of claims 2-3 and 9 of ‘111 only further support this obviousness and thus the prior art combined with said claims renders the instant claims above obvious.
Conclusion
23. 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, Michael Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3497. 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 /Michael Allen/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1671
Prosecution Insights