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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to the restriction requirement dated 02/09/2026, Applicant elects, without
traverse: Group I, claims 1 and 269-287 read on the elected group. Upon election of Group I, Applicant elects without traverse a peptide antigen conjugate having formula [S]-[E1]-A-[E2]-[U]-H or H-
[U]-[E1]-A-[E2]-[S] and rapamycin; Applicants hereby elect a composition comprising Compound 282,
ESLKISQAVHAAHAEINEAGREVVGSPVZX(N3-DBCO)-Ahx-W5. wherein X is azidolysine
and Z is citrulline, and rapamycin. Applicant’s election in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 269-287 are hereby examined on the merits. Claims 59, 95, 230, 253 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
This application filed 08/14/2023 is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2022/016600 , International Filing Date: 02/16/2022, PCT/US2022/016600, claims Priority from Provisional Application 63197092 , filed 06/04/2021 PCT/US2022/016600 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63149996 , filed 02/16/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2026 and 08/14/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner respectfully requests Applicant to correct ‘and’ and replace with ‘or’ in line 3, for consistency with Applicant’s election in the reply filed on 05/08/2026. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 15 refers to ‘X’ which requires correction as ‘X’ is not present in the formula as claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 269 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 refers to ‘X’ which requires correction as ‘X’ is not present in the formula as claimed.
Claim 278 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9 refers to ‘X’ which requires correction as ‘X’ is not present in the formula as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 269-287 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 1 recites “suitable linker” in line 15. It is unclear what the limitation conveys, or the structure that confers suitability, and therefore ambiguity arises. In line 15, the claim recites ‘indirectly…linker’. In this case, it is unclear what structure of linker is encompassed, to indirectly link adjacent groups as claimed.
Claim 269, recites ‘suitable linker’ which is ambiguous for the reasons stated above.
Claim 278 recites “suitable linker” in line 9. It is unclear what the limitation conveys, or the structure that confers suitability, and therefore ambiguity arises. In line 9, the claim recites ‘indirectly…linker’. In this case, it is unclear what structure of linker is encompassed, to indirectly link adjacent groups as claimed.
Claims 270-277, 279-287 which depend on claims 1, 269 and 278, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as these claims incorporate by dependency the indefiniteness of claim 1, 269 and 278.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 269-287 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geoffrey Martin Lynn et al., hereinafter Lynn (Geoffrey Martin Lynn et al., US2021/0113705A1; PCT filed May 22, 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Examiner interprets the formula as [S]-[E1]-A-[E2]-[U]-H or H-[U]-[E1]-A-[E2]-[S], consistent with the Applicant’s reply to the election requirement filed on 05/08/2026. Lynn teaches S- [ B1 ] - [ A ' ] - [ B2 ] - [ L ] -H, wherein ‘S’ is a solubilizing block (see [0448], line 5) (i.e.-S), ‘H’ is a hydrophobic block ([0251], line 2) (i.e. -H), ‘A’ is a peptide antigen ([0254], line 2) (i.e. -A), ‘B1’ is an N-terminal extension and ‘B2’ is a C-terminal extension ([0254], line 4) (i.e. -E1 and -E2 respectively), ‘L’ is a linker ([0254], line 1) (i.e. -U). Lynn teaches, that the Linker may comprise any suitable bond and in preferred embodiments, comprise a covalent bond ([0255], line 4). Lynn teaches H- [ L ] - [ B1 ] - [ A ' ] - [ B2 ] -C ([0466] line 3; [0473] line 4) wherein the solubilizing group may be any hydrophilic molecule, including any charged molecules, which are referred to charged moieties (C). (See [0448], line 9).
Lynn does not teach Rapamycin in the same embodiment.
Lynn teaches that hydrophobic or amphiphilic polymer is used as the hydrophobic block ( H ) and drives particle assembly of the peptide antigen conjugates [0173]. Polymers may include a side chain to facilitate linkage to an adjuvant or a molecule used to induce immune suppression or tolerance, such as macrolides, e.g., rapamycin [0173].
Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing rationale underlying the
motivation-suggestion-teaching test as a guard against using hindsight in an obviousness analysis).
Consequently, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Rapamycin as suggested in Lynn, as Lynn teaches that peptide antigen conjugates are used in combination with immuno-modulators, such as cytokines ( e.g. ,IL - 2 ) , anti - tumor antibodies , checkpoint inhibitors ( such as anti - PD1 ) antibodies , or other small molecules or biologics that reverse immune - suppression, directly kill tumor cells or
potentiate the immune response against the tumor.
One motivated to do so would have a reasonable expectation of success, as Lynn teaches that hydrophobic or amphiphilic polymer is used as the hydrophobic block ( H ) and may link to a molecule used to induce immune suppression or tolerance, such as macrolides, e.g., rapamycin [0173]. Thus, one would have recognized that modifying the teachings in Lynn, would have yielded predictable results, to generate immunogenic compositions (See MPEP §2143).
Regarding claim 269, the obviousness rationale has been set forth above. Lynn teaches hydrophobic or amphiphilic polymer is a hydrophobic block (H) ([0173], line 7). The polymers may include a side chain with a functional group that can be utilized , for example , to facilitate linkage (i.e. linker) to an adjuvant or a molecule used to induce immune suppression or tolerance (i.e. drug (D)) ([0173], line 19).
Regarding claim 270, Lynn teaches S- [ B1 ] - [ A ' ] - [ B2 ] - [ L ] -H ([0448], line 5).
Regarding claim 271, Lynn teaches that the N - terminal extension (i.e. E1) is a peptide sequence between about 1 to 8 amino acids in length , such as 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , or 8 amino acids [0305]; C - terminal extension (i.e. E2) is a peptide sequence between about 1 to 8 amino acids in length , such as 1, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , or 8 amino acids , typically no more than 10 amino acids [0292].
Regarding claim 272, Lynn teaches N - terminal extension (i.e. E1 ) is an enzyme degradable di - peptide ([0307] line 20). Specifically, Lynn teaches di - peptide N – terminal extensions ( i.e. E1 ) include : Val - Cit , Val - Leu , Val - Arg , Leu-Arg [0312].
Regarding claim 273, Lyn teaches tetrapeptide C – terminal extensions ( E2 ) include Ser - Leu - Val - Cit ( i.e. SEQ ID NO : 6 ) , Ser - Leu - Val - Leu ( i.e. SEQ ID NO : 7 ) , Ser - Pro - Val - Cit ( i.e. SEQ ID NO : 8 ) , Glu - Leu - Val - Arg ( i.e. SEQ ID NO : 9 ) , Ser – Pro-Val - Arg ( i.e. SEQ ID NO : 10 ) , Ser - Leu - Val - Arg ( i.e. SEQ ID NO : 11 ) , Lys - Pro - Leu - Arg ( i.e. SEQ ID NO : 2 ) , Glu - Leu - Val – Cit ( i.e. SEQ ID NO : 13 ) , Glu - Leu - Val - Leu ( i.e. SEQ ID NO : 14 ) , Glu - Pro - Val - Cit (i.e. SEQ ID NO : 15 ) , Glu - Gly - Val - Cit ( i.e. SEQ ID NO : 31 ).
Regarding claim 274, Lynn teaches that Linker ( L ) (i.e. U) may comprise any suitable bond that joins the peptide antigen ( A ) to the hydrophobic block ( H ) . The Linker ( L ) comprises a covalent bond . Non - limiting examples of covalent bonds include those comprising disulfides , amides , thioethers , hydrazones and triazoles [0255].
Regarding claim 275, Lynn teaches linker Lys(N3-DBCO) ([0427], line 9).
Regarding claim 276, Lynn teaches that H comprises poly (amino acid)-based polymer ([0044] line 2).
Regarding claim 277, the obviousness rationale has been set forth above. Lynn teaches N - terminal amino acid of hydrophobic blocks comprise methylene units . An amino acid with 5 methylene units is amino - hexanoic acid (i.e. Ahx) [0381].
Lynn does not teach Ahx-2B3W2-NH2 or Ahx-(W)5-NH2.
Lynn teaches that , a Ligand is attached to the hydrophobic block ( H ) of the peptide antigen conjugate . The Ligand attached to the hydrophobic block ( H ) is a hydrophobic ligand comprising an aromatic ring . In some embodiments , the Ligand attached to the hydrophobic block ( H ) is a hydrophobic ligand comprising a heterocyclic aromatic ring , optionally wherein the hydrophobic ligand further comprises an aromatic amine ( i.e. Ar - NH2 ) [0382]. Specifically, Lynn teaches Glu(2B)-Trp-Glu(2B)-Trp-Glu(2B)-NH2 (i.e. 2B3W2-NH2) (see Fig 20; [0110], lines 10-11; see Fig 7). Additionally, Lynn teaches H is comprised of 5 or more hydrophobic amino acids , such as 5 or more Tryptophan amino acids [0461][0349], i.e. (W)5.
Consequently, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Lynn, as Lynn teaches hydrophobic blocks comprising Ahx and that the ligand attached to the hydrophobic block comprises a heterocyclic aromatic ring, specifically 2B3W2-NH2.
One motivated to do so would have a reasonable expectation of success, as Lynn teaches that the hydrophobic aromatic ring , optionally comprising a heterocycle and / or aryl amine , provides the unexpected properties that peptide antigen conjugates comprising such structures are highly soluble in pharmaceutically acceptable organic solvents ,such as DMSO and ethanol [0382]. (See MPEP §2143).
Regarding claim 278, Lynn teaches S- [ B ] - [ L ] -H ([0448], line 5).
Regarding claim 279, Lynn teaches amphiphilic carrier molecules with brush architecture prepared by linking hydrophobic blocks to amplifying linkers that provide two or more attachment points for C - B , for instance , ( C - B ) y19 - K- [ L ] -H , wherein K is an amplifying linker and y19 denotes that there are an integer number , typically between 2 and 8 , of charged blocks ( C ) linked to spacers (B) attached to the amplifying linker , which is attached either directly or through a Linker ( L ) to a hydrophobic block (i.e. dendron amplifier) [0462].
Regarding claim 280, Lynn teaches that charged moiety (C) includes carboxylates [0411] glutamic acid , sulfo - serine , or phospho – serine ([0412], last 3 lines).
Regarding claim 281, Lynn teaches C-B-L-H (see page61); here, ‘y17’ is an integer number of repeating units of monomers comprising the charged moiety (C), selected between about 1-16 [0492].
Regarding claim 282, Lynn teaches Formula I(c) wherein the integer y5 is typically 0 to 6. The Functional Group ( FG ) included in Formula I ( c ) is typically selected from carboxylic acid , amine , thiol, aldehyde , ketone , hydrazine , azide , or alkyne . In preferred embodiments , the FG links the Ligand to the poly ( amino acid ) backbone either directly or through a linker . In some embodiments , the FG can be linked to a second polymer [0358].
Regarding claim 283, Lynn teaches that functional group ( FG ) of X1 is selected to react
specifically, with FG on the linker precursor X2 and is typically selected from amine (i.e. -NH2) , azide , hydrazine or thiol ([0264], line 5). Functional groups comprising X2 include carbonyls , such as activated esters / carboxylic acids (i.e. COOH) or ketones that react with amines or hydrazines provided on the linker precursor X1 to form Linkers ( L ) comprising an amide or hydrazone ([0268], line 5).
Regarding claim 284, Lynn teaches PEG {0323] line 17; [0351] line 14; [0364] line 4.
Regarding claim 285, Lynn teaches hydrophobic block ( H ) may be chosen from any of higher alkanes , cyclic aromatics , fatty acids , compounds deriving from terpenes / isoprene or polymers [0323].
Regarding claim 286, Lynn teaches ‘B’ is hydrophilic polymer ([0461], line 11).
Regarding claim 287, Lynn teaches ‘L’ (i.e. U) is Lys ( N3 - DBCO ) (i.e. amide) ([0446], line 11).
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.
1. Claim 1, 269, 272, 273, 277, 285 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 of copending Application No. 18/432,637 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, reference application ‘637 teaches a peptide antigen (i.e. A), linked to a peptide tag (i.e. H), comprising 1-5 aromatic amino acids (i.e. Ahx-(W)5-N2), further comprising an adjuvant (i.e. drug). See claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13.
Reference application does not teach Rapamycin.
Instant application teaches that immunostimulants and/or Treg promoting immunomodulators
that are poorly water soluble, i.e., hydrophobic drug molecules, may be linked to the hydrophobic block
(H) of the amphiphiles and/or peptide antigen conjugates (e.g., S-[B]-[U]-H-D and/or [S]-[E1]-A-[E2]-
[U]-H-D) and may therefore be incorporated into the core of the particles comprising the amphiphiles
and/or peptide antigen conjugates through covalent bonds between the drugs and the hydrophobic block (H) comprising the particle core [00840]. Immunosuppressants include synthetic or naturally occurring agonists of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR); certain steroids, including glucocorticoids; certain histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACS), such as inhibitors of HDAC9; retinoic acid receptor agonists; mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, such as rapamycin [0084].
Consequently, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Rapamycin as the adjuvant, to the peptide antigen as suggested in the instant application.
One motivated to do so would have a reasonable expectation of success, as reference application teaches adjuvant (i.e. drug) and Rapamycin, linked to the peptide antigen, functions as immunosuppressants (See MPEP §2143).
Regarding claim 269, the rejection has been noted above.
Regarding claim 272, reference application ‘637 teaches cathepsin-cleavable peptide linker. See claim 12. Embodiments of the specification teach E1 and E2 are cathepsin-cleavable [00449].
Regarding claim 273, the rejection in claim 272 has been noted above. See claim 12.
Regarding claim 277, reference application ‘637 teaches peptide tag wherein the peptide tag comprises five tryptophans. See claims 1-5.
Regarding claim 285, reference application ‘637 teaches peptide tag wherein the peptide tag comprises five tryptophans. See claims 1-5.
2. Claim 278-285 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2-6, 11, 25, 62, 77, 80 of copending Application No. 18/570,579 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding 278, reference application ‘579 teaches peptide amphiphile having the formula S-[B]-[U]-H. See claim 1, 62, 77, 80.
Regarding claim 279, reference application ‘579 teaches dendron amplifier. See claim 1.
Regarding claim 280, reference application ‘579 teaches solubilizing groups. See claim 1.
Regarding claim 281, reference application ‘579 teaches repeating monomer units and 2-6 branches per generation. See claim 4.
Regarding claim 282, reference application ‘579 teaches monomer units. See claim 6.
Regarding claim 283, reference application ‘579 teaches monomer units. See claim 6.
Regarding claim 284, reference application ‘579 teaches PEG. See claim 11.
Regarding claim 285, reference application ‘579 teaches ‘H’. See claim 25.
3. Claim 1, 269, 270, 276, 277 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 of copending Application No. 17/282,447 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, reference application ‘447 teaches amphiphilic block copolymer having S-B-H. Due to the use of ‘having’ when defining S-B-H, the claimed amphiphilic block copolymer is not limited to the recited elements. See claim 1, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21.
Reference application does not teach Rapamycin.
Instant application teaches that immunostimulants and/or Treg promoting immunomodulators
that are poorly water soluble, i.e., hydrophobic drug molecules, may be linked to the hydrophobic block
(H) of the amphiphiles and/or peptide antigen conjugates (e.g., S-[B]-[U]-H-D and/or [S]-[E1]-A-[E2]-
[U]-H-D) and may therefore be incorporated into the core of the particles comprising the amphiphiles
and/or peptide antigen conjugates through covalent bonds between the drugs and the hydrophobic block (H) comprising the particle core [00840]. Immunosuppressants include synthetic or naturally occurring agonists of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR); certain steroids, including glucocorticoids; certain histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACS), such as inhibitors of HDAC9; retinoic acid receptor agonists; mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, such as rapamycin [0084].
Consequently, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Rapamycin, to the peptide antigen as suggested in the instant application since claim 21 of the reference application teaches drug molecule (D).
One motivated to do so would have a reasonable expectation of success, as reference application teaches drug and Rapamycin, linked to the peptide antigen, functions as immunosuppressants (See MPEP §2143).
Regarding claim 269, reference application ‘447 teaches drug molecule. See claim 21.
Regarding claim 270, reference application ‘447 teaches amphiphilic block copolymer. See claim 1, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21.
Regarding claim 276, reference application ‘447 teaches 3-30 aromatic amino acids (i.e. poly (amino acid)). See claim 6.
Regarding claim 277, reference application ‘447 teaches 3-30 aromatic amino acids (i.e. W5). See claim 6.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARCHANA VARADARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-2366. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-5:00pm.
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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 5712707430. 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.
/ARCHANA VARADARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 1658
/Melissa L Fisher/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights