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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed December 18, 2025. Applicant’s reply to the restriction/election requirement of October 24, 2025 has been entered. Claims 2, 3, 38, 41, 44, 52, 100, and 109 have been amended; claims 4-37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45-51, 53-79, 83-99, 106-108, 110-118, and 122-133 have been canceled; and claim 134 has been newly added. Claims 1-3, 38, 41, 44, 52, 80-82, 100-105, 109, 119-121, and 134 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed WIPO International Application No. PCT/US2021/065580, filed December 29, 2021 under 35 U.S.C. 365(c), which claims the benefit of prior-filed U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/132,315, filed December 30, 2020 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claim 52, is acknowledged. Applicant’s elections of i) “SEQ ID NO: 6” as the single disclosed species of modified RNA sequence, ii) “miR21” as the single disclosed species of miRNA, and iii) “iron oxide” as the single disclosed species of iron compound are all also acknowledged. The Examiner has determined that claims 2, 3, 38, 44, 52, 100, and 134 read on the elected subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1, 41, 80-82, 101-105, 109, and 119-121 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 18, 2025. Claims 2, 3, 38, 44, 52, 100, and 134 are currently under examination.
Compliance to the Sequence Rules
Summary of Requirements for Patent Applications Filed On Or After July 1, 2022, That Have Sequence Disclosures
37 CFR 1.831(a) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.831(b) must contain a “Sequence Listing XML”, 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 1.831-1.835. This “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure may be submitted:
1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 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”) in XML format, together with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML file in a separate paragraph of the specification (an incorporation by reference paragraph) as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) identifying:
a. the name of the XML file
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes; or
2. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 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 statement of the material in the XML format according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
a. the name of the XML file;
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes.
SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AND THE REQUIRED RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Specific deficiency - This application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.834 because it does not contain a “Sequence Listing XML” as a separate part of the disclosure. A “Sequence Listing XML” is required because the application, including the claims, disclose specific RNA sequences with SEQ ID NOs, e.g. SEQ ID NO: 1, SEQ ID NO: 6, etc.
Required response - Applicant must provide:
• A “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure, as described above in item 1. or 2.; together with
o A statement that indicates the basis for the amendment, with specific references to particular parts of the application as originally filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(3);
o A statement that the “Sequence Listing XML” includes no new matter as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(4)
AND
• A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation by reference paragraph as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2), consisting of:
o A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
o A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
o A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
In order to be fully responsive to the instant Office action, Applicant must file all appropriate amendments and documents as listed above to fully comply with the Sequence Rules.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
1. The abstract should be a concise summary of the key technical aspects of the invention which are new to the art to which the invention pertains. If the invention pertains to a composition, the abstract should recite the key requisite ingredients. If the invention pertains to a method, the abstract should recite the key requisite active steps.
2. The abstract merely informs the reader in a rather generic manner about compositions and methods for treating cancer that comprise a single-stranded 5’ uncapped triphosphate or biphosphate modified RNA oligonucleotide that is complementary to a miRNA in the tumor. This is generally not new to the art at all. Applicant is thus advised, at the very least, to be more specific about what modified RNA oligonucleotide sequences in particular constitute Applicant’s own invention, perhaps what miRNA in the tumor are being targeted, and what specific type of cancer is being treated.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 52 and 134 are objected to because of the following:
i) In claim 3, for the miRNA “miR92a-1”, there is an extraneous space between the “miR92a-“ and the “1”.
ii) For claims 52 and 134, there is an extraneous comma between “for treating cancer” and “comprising”.
iii) In claim 134, there is an extraneous colon between “comprising” and “administering”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting Objection
Claim 134 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 38. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - Obviousness-Type 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 2, 3, 38, 44, 52, 100, and 134 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 10, 13, 26, 39, 40, and 42 of copending Application No. 18/215,550 (claim set filed 10-12-2023).
Applicant’s elected subject matter is directed to a method for treating cancer comprising administering to a subject a therapeutically effective amount of a magnetic nanoparticle comprising iron oxide, a dextran coating, and a single-stranded 5’ uncapped triphosphate or biphosphate modified RNA oligonucleotide comprising the sequence SEQ ID NO: 6; wherein said oligonucleotide is complementary to miR21, and wherein the cancer is metastatic cancer.
Claims 1-3, 10, 13, 26, 39, 40, and 42 of copending Application No. 18/215,550 disclose a method of treating tumors comprising administering to a subject in need thereof a pharmaceutical formulation comprising a nanoparticle comprising a core-shell strudture, wherein the shell comprises a single-stranded 5’ uncapped triphosphate antisense oligonucleotide having a sequence complementary to an endogenous miRNA; wherein the miRNA can be e.g. miR21; the shell can further include dextran; and the core can contain a metal or metal ion.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the disclosure provides that such a nanoparticle can have a magnetic iron oxide core, and that the antisense oligonucleotide having a sequence complementary to e.g. miR21 can be the sequence 5’-UCAACAUCAGUCUGAUAAGCUA-3’ (i.e. SEQ ID NO: 6).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 2, 44, and 52 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.
Claim 52 is directed to a method of treating cancer comprising administering a magnetic nanoparticle containing iron oxide, dextran, and “a single-stranded 5’ uncapped triphosphate or biphosphate modified RNA oligonucleotide” that “is complementary to a miRNA which is highly expressed in a tumor”. The claims are much broader in scope than what Applicant actually has support for in the original specification. Specifically, the claims broadly provide for a genus of any (modified) RNA oligonucleotides complementary to any miRNA that is “highly” expressed in a cancer and that can be used to treat the cancer. While Applicant has adequate support for e.g. an RNA oligonucleotide with sequence of any one of SEQ ID Nos: 1-13, Applicant does not have adequate support for the identity of any and all possible RNA oligonucleotide sequences that fall within the claimed genus, and Applicant has neither demonstrated a “common core structure” for the claimed function of treating cancer, nor disclosed a representative number of species to support the entire genus.
Claims 2 and 44 depend from claim 52 and suffer from the same issue.
It is further noted that claims 3, 38, 100, and 134 have been found to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2, 3, 38, 44, and 52 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.
Claim 52 stipulates that the nanoparticle comprises a “modified RNA oligonucleotide”, which is “complementary to a miRNA, which is highly expressed in a tumor or tumor microenvironment in comparison to a non-tumor or non-tumor microenvironment”, which renders the claim indefinite for the following reasons:
1. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain the metes and bounds of the “modified RNA oligonucleotide” that is necessarily included as part of the magnetic nanoparticle. Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain the metes and bounds of the “RNA oligonucleotide” itself, before the requisite “modification”. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain which “RNA oligonucleotide” is included and which “RNA oligonucleotide” is excluded from the purview of the present claims, even before trying to determine how this “RNA oligonucleotide” must be “modified” and to what extent.
2. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain the metes and bounds of the term “modified” with respect to the RNA oligonucleotide. Modified how? Modified to what extent” Modified relative to what? One of ordinary skill in the art cannot even definitively ascertain the metes and bounds of the “RNA oligonucleotide”, and this is compounded by the indefiniteness of “modified”. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot make heads or tails out of the metes and bounds of “modified RNA oligonucleotides”.
3. As far as “complementary to a miRNA”, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain what miRNA is “highly expressed” in a tumor compared to a non-tumor, and thus cannot definitively ascertain the metes and bounds of the miRNA or its respective sequence, and thus cannot make heads or tails out of what RNA oligonucleotides are “complementary” to this unknown miRNA sequence. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain whether the “RNA oligonucleotide” is complementary, or rather the “modified RNA oligonucleotide” is complementary. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain whether “complementary” is limited to a complement sequence, or can further include the reverse-complement sequence, or is limited to the reverse-complement sequence.
4. The term “highly”, i.e. “highly expressed”, is arbitrary, relative, and subjective, and is not defined by the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain the metes and bounds of “is highly expressed”, how “highly expressed” is different from “not highly expressed”, and what the standard or baseline expression level serves as the reference for “highly expressed”.
5. Claim 52 appears to be comparing the expression of a miRNA in a tumor to any random “non-tumor or non-tumor microenvironment”. Any given miRNA could be expressed in a wide range of amounts in various tissues and tissue environments, and one of ordinary skill in the art thus cannot definitively ascertain the standard or baseline value that must be employed to determine if the miRNA in a tumor is “highly expressed”. Hence, compared to one tissue, the tumor may express the miRNA, but not “highly”, but compared to another tissue, the very same expression level of the miRNA in the tumor could fall within the purview of “highly expressed”.
Claim 2 is indefinite for the following reasons:
1. Claim 2 depends from claim 52. Prior to claim 2, there is no mention of any claim 52. Hence, there is insufficient antecedent basis for any claim 52.
2. Claim 2 stipulates in a wherein clause that “RIG-1 is selectively activated in the tumor or tumors microenvironment expressing the miRNA”. One of ordinary skill in the art thus cannot definitively ascertain whether RIG-1 is necessarily “selectively activated” before the administration of the magnetic nanoparticle, or rather is “selectively activated” by the administration of the magnetic nanoparticle”. In other words, does claim 2 further limit the miRNA that is “highly expressed” and thus also “selectively activates” RIG-1? Or rather does claim 2 further limit the modified RNA oligonucleotide that “selectively activates” RIG-1 upon administration?
Claim 3, 38, and 44 each depend from claim 52. Prior to claim 3, 38, and 44, there is no mention of any claim 52. Hence, there is insufficient antecedent basis for any claim 52 in each of these claims.
Claims 2, 3, and 44 are (also) indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
***It is noted that claims 38, 100, and 134 definitively define the “complementary RNA oligonucleotide” sequence, and are thus not being rejected on the grounds that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain the metes and bounds of the “modified RNA oligonucleotide”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 2, 3, 38, 44, 52, 100, and 134 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (Molecular Medicine Reports. 2018; 17: 4237-4244), in view of Yalcin (Pharm Dev Tech. 2019; 24(8): 1032-1037), and Poeck et al. (Nature Med. 2008; 14(11): 1256-1263).
Applicant claims
Applicant’s elected subject matter is directed to a method for treating cancer comprising administering to a subject a therapeutically effective amount of a magnetic nanoparticle comprising iron oxide, a dextran coating, and a single-stranded 5’ uncapped triphosphate or biphosphate modified RNA oligonucleotide comprising the sequence SEQ ID NO: 6; wherein said oligonucleotide is complementary to miR21, and wherein the cancer is metastatic cancer.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art (MPEP §2141.01)
Yan et al. disclose a method for treating cancer comprising administering to a subject a therapeutically effective amount of a RNA oligonucleotide comprising the sequence 5’-UCAACAUCAGUCUGAUAAGCUA-3’ (i.e. SEQ ID NO: 6); wherein said oligonucleotide is complementary to miR21, wherein the cancer can be metastatic cancer, and wherein the RNA oligonucleotide of SEQ ID NO: 6 induces apoptosis.
Yalcin discloses a method for treating cancer comprising administering to a subject a therapeutically effective amount of a magnetic nanoparticle comprising iron oxide, a dextran coating, and a single-stranded 5’ RNA oligonucleotide; wherein the magnetic nanoparticle serves as a convenient and efficacious delivery system that protects the RNA oligonucleotide from nucleases and boosts delivery efficiency for the tumor site/cells.
Poeck et al. disclose a method for treating cancer comprising administering to a subject a therapeutically effective amount of a single-stranded 5’ uncapped triphosphate modified siRNA oligonucleotide which inhibits bcl-2, wherein the 5’ triphosphate is recognized by RIG-1, which then activates innate immune cells and directly induces expression of interferons and apoptosis in tumor cells; wherein the cancer can be e.g. a metastatic cancer, and wherein the RIG-1 mediated activities synergize with siRNA-mediated bcl-2 silencing to promote massive apoptosis of tumor cells.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between the Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims (MPEP §2141.02)
Yan et al. do not explicitly disclose that the RNA oligonucleotide with SEQ ID NO: 6 is delivered via a magnetic nanoparticle comprising iron oxide and a dextran coating, and that the RNA oligonucleotide with SEQ ID NO: 6 has a 5’-triphosphate end. These deficiencies are cured by the teachings of Yalcin and Poeck et al.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the present application was filed to combine the respective teachings of Yan et al., Yalcin, and Poeck et al., outlined supra, to devise Applicant’s presently claimed method.
Yan et al. disclose a method for treating metastatic cancer comprising administering to a subject a therapeutically effective amount of an RNA oligonucleotide having the sequence 5’-UCAACAUCAGUCUGAUAAGCUA-3’, i.e. SEQ ID NO: 6; which is complementary to miR21; wherein the RNA oligonucleotide of SEQ ID NO: 6 treats the cancer in part by inducing apoptosis of tumor cells. Since Yalcin discloses that a magnetic nanoparticle comprising iron oxide and a dextran coating serves as a convenient and efficacious system for delivery of an RNA oligonucleotide to cancer cells, wherein the nanoparticle both protects the RNA oligonucleotide from nucleases and boosts delivery efficiency to the tumor site/cells; and since Poeck et al. disclose that administration of a single-stranded 5’ uncapped triphosphate modified siRNA oligonucleotide to metastatic cancer cells activates RIG-1, which then activates innate immune cells and directly induces expression of interferons and apoptosis in tumor cells, and that the RIG-1 mediated activities triggered by the presence of the 5’-triphosphate end synergize with the siRNA-mediated apoptosis of tumor cells for a more potent anti-cancer effect; one of ordinary skill in the art would thus be motivated to modify the RNA oligonucleotide of SEQ ID NO: 6 by including a 5’ triphosphate end, and to deliver the modified RNA oligonucleotide in a magnetic nanoparticle comprising iron oxide and a dextran coating, with the reasonable expectation that the resulting method will be more efficacious and induce a more potent anti-cancer effect.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BROWE whose telephone number is (571)270-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM to 6 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, Sue Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/DAVID BROWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617