DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response to the Restriction/Election requirement received on 3/13/26 has been entered. Claims 1-14, and 16-21 are pending in this application.
Applicant’s election of Group I, and the species RhoA inhibitor a) G04 as the species of platelet apoptosis inhibitor is acknowledged. Note that applicant did not elect one of the specific combinations of G04 and another inhibitor which were identified as species d), e), or g). As applicant did not indicate whether the election of invention and/or species was made with or without traverse, and as applicant did not provide any arguments traversing the grounds for restriction or election of species, applicant’s elections are considered to have been made without traverse.
Claims 18, and 20-21 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/13/26.
Claims 1-14, 16-17, and 19 are therefore currently under examination based on the elected species of RhoA inhibitor G04. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . An action on the merits follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/25/23, 11/10/23, and 2/17/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner, and initialed and signed copies of the 1449s are attached to this action.
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 6-8, 17, and 19 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.
Claims 6-8 depend on claim 1. Independent claim 1 is a product claim drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising platelets in storage medium and at least one inhibitor of platelet apoptosis. Claims 6-8 each recite the composition of claim 1, “wherein said cold stored blood platelets …”. The phrase “said cold stored blood platelets” lack the proper antecedent basis in claim 1. While claim 1 recites that the pharmaceutical composition is “for cold storing platelets”, the actual claimed elements of the composition does not recite that the platelets have in fact been cold stored. As such, antecedent basis is lacking for “cold-stored platelets” and therefore the metes and bounds of claims 6-8 cannot be determined.
In addition, claim 6 recites, “wherein said cold stored blood platelets show a % platelet (PLT) viability on day 10 of more than about 50%”. The limitation “on day 10” is confusing as the claims are drawn to a product and not to a method. There is no reference provided in claim 6, or independent claim 1 upon which it depends, for how “day 10” is calculated. In other words, is “day 10” supposed to represent 10 days from when the sample of platelets is obtained from a donor, the number of days the platelets have been cultured in vitro, the number of days the cells have been cold stored, or the number of days following any length of cold storage. It is also noted that neither the composition of claim 1 nor claim 6 is limited to any particular “day” in time. As such, the metes and bounds of the phrase “on day 10” cannot be determined, and therefore it cannot be determined “when” or under what conditions, the compositions has the recited % platelet viability. In the interests of compact prosecution claim 6 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation of a composition of platelets and a RhoA inhibitor at any period in time and under any conditions, not limited to a “day 10” or any percent viability.
In addition, Claim 7 recites, “wherein said cold stored blood platelets show a % apoptosis on day 10 of less than about 40%”. The limitation “on day 10” is confusing as the claims are drawn to a product and not to a method. There is no reference provided in claim 7, or independent claim 1 upon which it depends, for how “day 10” is calculated. In other words, is “day 10” supposed to represent 10 days from when the sample of platelets is obtained from a donor, the number of days the platelets have been cultured in vitro, the number of days the cells have been cold stored, or the number of days following any length of cold storage. It is also noted that neither the composition of claim 1 nor claim 7 is limited to any particular “day” in time. As such, the metes and bounds of the phrase “on day 10” cannot be determined, and therefore it cannot be determined “when” or under what conditions, the composition has the recited % apoptosis. In the interests of compact prosecution claim 7 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation of a composition of platelets and a RhoA inhibitor at any period in time and under any conditions, not limited to a “day 10” or any percent of apoptosis.
In addition, claim 8 recites, “wherein said cold stored blood platelets show a % PLT aggregation on day 7 of more than about 60%”. The limitation “on day 7” is confusing as the claims are drawn to a product and not to a method. There is no reference provided in claim 8, or independent claim 1 upon which it depends, for how “day 7” is calculated. In other words, is “day 7” supposed to represent 7 days from when the sample of platelets is obtained from a donor, the number of days the platelets have been cultured in vitro, the number of days the cells have been cold stored, or the number of days following any length of cold storage. It is also noted that neither the composition of claim 1 nor claim 8 is limited to any particular “day” in time. As such, the metes and bounds of the phrase “on day 7” cannot be determined, and therefore it cannot be determined “when” or under what conditions, the composition has the recited % aggregation. In the interests of compact prosecution claim 8 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation of a composition of platelets and a RhoA inhibitor at any period in time and under any conditions, not limited to a “day 7” or any percent aggregation.
Claim 19 further lack antecedent basis for “said blood platelet concentrate”. Claim 9 upon which claim 19 depends recites “blood platelets” and not “blood platelet concentrate”. As such, the metes and bounds of claim 19 cannot be determined.
Claims 17 and 19 are further indefinite in the recitation that the blood platelet concentrate is “autologous”. The term “autologous” in relation to a cell is a word whose meaning only acquires context where the method involves the delivery of the cells to a subject. In that context, the word “autologous” indicates that the cells are derived from the subject. However, claim 17 is drawn to a composition of cells, and claim 19 is drawn to a method of preparing the composition of cells. Neither claim 17 nor claim 19 provides a context for how “autologous” relates to either the composition or the method of preparing the composition. As such, the metes and bounds of the term “autologous” in relation to the platelets cannot be determined. In the interests of compact prosecution, the term “autologous” has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation as encompassing any cell in a composition or in vitro culture.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hegde et al. (2017) Haematologic, Vol. 102(S2), S149, abstract.
Hegde et al. teaches methods of improving the survival of platelets following cold storage comprising adding the RhoA inhibitor G04 at a concentration of 75 mcM (mM) to isolated platelets in vitro prior to 7 days of refrigeration (Hegde et al., abstract). Hegde et al. teaches that the platelets were obtained from humans, Rhesus monkey, or mice and that the platelets were present in either plasma or PAS-III (Hegde et al., abstract). Hegde et al. also refers to the monkey platelets which were cold stored in the presence of G04 as “autologous” (Hegde et al., abstract). Hegde et al. teaches that treatment with G04 during refrigeration prevented cold-induced platelet clearance (Hegde et al., abstract). Hegde et al. further teaches that the effects of G04 were reversible following cold storage allowing RhoA activity to return to normal levels (Hegde et al., abstract).
While Hegde et al. clearly teaches a composition comprising platelets and the RhoA inhibitor G04, and methods of cold storage comprising combining platelets and the RhoA inhibitor G04 and refrigerating the composition, Hedge et al. does not specifically teach that the G04 is an “anti-apoptosis” inhibitor. However, the RhoA inhibitor G04 is the exact same structure disclosed in the instant specification and recited in the instant claims. As such, the functional property of G04 as an “anti-apoptosis” inhibitor is considered inherent to the G04 molecule itself. “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.” See MPEP 2112.01 or In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1997). The applicant is further reminded that there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In addition, Hegde et al. clearly teaches a method of cold storage which contains the exact same method steps as claimed. It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit to an old process cannot render the process again patentable. In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 1577-78, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed.Cir. 1990); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971); and Ex Parte Novitski, 26 USPQ2d 1389, 1391 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Therefore, by teaching compositions with the exact same structures as claimed, and methods comprising the exact same method steps as claimed, Hegde et al. anticipates the instant invention as claimed.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hegde et al. (2019) Blood, Vol. 134, Suppl. 1:99, pages 1-2, hereafter referred to as Hegde (2019).
Hegde (2019) teaches methods of improving the survival of platelets during cold storage comprising adding the RhoA inhibitor G04 to the platelets prior to 14 days of refrigeration (Hegde (2019), page 2). Hegde (2019) teaches that the platelets were obtained from humans and were present in either plasma or PAS-IIIM (PAS-E) (Hegde (2019), abstract). Hegde (2019) teaches that treatment with G04 during refrigeration inhibited aggregation and prevented cold-induced platelet clearance (Hegde (2019), page 2). Hegde (2019) further teaches that the effects of G04 were reversible following cold storage allowing RhoA activity to return to normal levels (Hegde (2019), page 2).
While Hegde (2019) clearly teaches a composition comprising platelets and the RhoA inhibitor G04, and methods of cold storage comprising combining platelets and the RhoA inhibitor G04 and refrigerating the composition at 0°C -20°C, Hegde (2019) does not specifically teach that the G04 is an “anti-apoptosis” inhibitor. However, the RhoA inhibitor G04 is the exact same structure disclosed in the instant specification and recited in the instant claims. As such, the functional property of G04 as an “anti-apoptosis” inhibitor is considered inherent to the G04 molecule itself. “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.” See MPEP 2112.01 or In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1997). The applicant is further reminded that there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In addition, Hegde (2019) clearly teaches a method of cold storage which contains the exact same method steps as claimed. It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit to an old process cannot render the process again patentable. In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 1577-78, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed.Cir. 1990); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971); and Ex Parte Novitski, 26 USPQ2d 1389, 1391 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Therefore, by teaching compositions with the exact same structures as claimed, and methods comprising the exact same method steps as claimed, Hegde (2019) anticipates the instant invention as claimed.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,028,503 (July 24, 2018), hereafter referred to as Zheng et al.
Zheng et al. teaches a composition for cold platelet storage at 0 to 20°C comprising platelets, physiologically acceptable carrier, and the RhoA inhibitor G04 (Zheng et al., claims 1-10). Zheng et al. further teaches a method of cold storing platelets comprising combining platelets with the RhoA inhibitor G04 and exposing the treated cells to cold storage at about 0°C, or about 1°C -20°C, for about 4-20 days (Zheng et al., claims 12-18). Zheng et al. teaches that the use of the RhoA inhibitor G04 during cold storage inhibits platelet damaging activity from polymerization of F-actin, depolymerization of F-actin, actomysin contraction, tubulin polymerization, and spectrin anchorage and further results in platelet survival of greater that about 65% after a cold storage period of 24 hours at 5°C (Zheng et al., claims 16-17, and paragraphs 124-129). In addition, Zheng et al. teaches that the platelets are human platelets, and in the context of storage for future transfusion, the patient’s own platelets which in the context of transfusion can be considred autologous platelets (Zheng et al., paragraph 130). Finally, Zheng et al. teaches that the physiologically acceptable carrier for the platelets comprises various buffered saline solutions, or electrolyte solutions further comprises one or more additives, i.e. a platelet additive solution (Zheng et al., claims 2-8).
While Zheng et al. clearly teaches a composition comprising platelets and the RhoA inhibitor G04, and methods of cold storage comprising combining platelets and the RhoA inhibitor G04 and cold storing the composition at 0°C -20°C, where the survival of the platelets following the cold storage is at least 65%, Zheng et al. does not specifically teach that the G04 is an “anti-apoptosis” inhibitor. However, the RhoA inhibitor G04 is the exact same structure disclosed in the instant specification and recited in the instant claims. As such, the functional property of G04 as an “anti-apoptosis” inhibitor is considered inherent to the G04 molecule itself. “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.” See MPEP 2112.01 or In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1997). The applicant is further reminded that there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In addition, Zheng et al. clearly teaches a method of cold storage which contains the exact same method steps as claimed. It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit to an old process cannot render the process again patentable. In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 1577-78, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed.Cir. 1990); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971); and Ex Parte Novitski, 26 USPQ2d 1389, 1391 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Therefore, by teaching compositions with the exact same structures as claimed, and methods comprising the exact same method steps as claimed, Zheng et al. anticipates the instant invention as claimed.
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.
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, 9, 11, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,028,503 (July 24, 2018), hereafter referred to as Zheng et al. in view of Tynngard (2009) Transfusion and Apheresis Science, Vol. 41, 97-104.
Zheng et al. teaches a composition for cold platelet storage at 0 to 20°C comprising platelets, physiologically acceptable carrier, and the RhoA inhibitor G04 (Zheng et al., claims 1-10). Zheng et al. further teaches a method of cold storing platelets comprising combining platelets with the RhoA inhibitor G04 and exposing the treated cells to cold storage at about 0°C, or about 1°C -20°C, for about 4-20 days (Zheng et al., claims 12-18). Zheng et al. teaches that the use of the RhoA inhibitor G04 during cold storage inhibits platelet damaging activity from polymerization of F-actin, depolymerization of F-actin, actomysin contraction, tubulin polymerization, and spectrin anchorage and further results in platelet survival of greater that about 65% after a cold storage period of 24 hours at 5°C (Zheng et al., claims 16-17, and paragraphs 124-129). In addition, Zheng et al. teaches that the platelets are human platelets, and in the context of storage for future transfusion, the patient’s own platelets, i.e. autologous platelets (Zheng et al., paragraph 130). Finally, Zheng et al. teaches that the physiologically acceptable carrier for the platelets comprises various buffered saline solutions, or electrolyte solutions further comprising one or more additives, i.e. a platelet additive solution (Zheng et al., claims 2-8).
While Zheng et al. clearly teaches a composition comprising platelets and the RhoA inhibitor G04, and methods of cold storage comprising combining platelets and the RhoA inhibitor G04 and cold storing the composition at 0°C -20°C, where the survival of the platelets following the cold storage is at least 65%, Zheng et al. does not specifically teach that the G04 is an “anti-apoptosis” inhibitor. However, the RhoA inhibitor G04 is the exact same structure disclosed in the instant specification and recited in the instant claims. As such, the functional property of G04 as an “anti-apoptosis” inhibitor is considered inherent to the G04 molecule itself. “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.” See MPEP 2112.01 or In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1997). The applicant is further reminded that there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In addition, Zheng et al. clearly teaches a method of cold storage which contains the exact same method steps as claimed. It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit to an old process cannot render the process again patentable. In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 1577-78, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed.Cir. 1990); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971); and Ex Parte Novitski, 26 USPQ2d 1389, 1391 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993). Note as well that reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. 186 USPQ 80 (CCPA). As stated in MPEP 2112, the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103."The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731,739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Zheng et al., while teaching the cold storage of platelets, including platelets obtained from human blood, does not specifically teach to cold store a blood platelet concentrate, or more specifically a blood platelet concentrate as platelets in an additive solution or as platelet-rich plasma in the presence of G04. However, at the time of filing, the standard for obtaining platelets from humans involved the preparation of a blood platelet concentrate. Tynngard teaches platelets are commonly obtained from human as platelet concentrates which are prepared using an apheresis method or from whole blood by either the buffy-coat (BC) or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) method (Tynngard, page 98). Tynngard teaches that in the apheresis method, the blood from a donor is processed with a cell separator with an in-line centrifuge for platelet collection, whereas in the PRP method, the whole blood is centrifuged by soft spin to prepare PRP followed by a high spin to generate a platelet pellet that is then resuspended in reduced volume of plasma (Tynngard, page 98). Tynngard teaches that platelet concentrates obtained from any of these methods can be stored in vitro (Tynngard, page 98). Tynngard further teaches that instead of resuspending a platelet pellet in plasma, the platelets can be resuspended in a platelet additive solution such as PAS-II or PAS-III which can inhibit pathogen growth and improve in vitro storage quality of the platelets (Tynngard, page 99). Thus, Tynngard teaches that there are several standard, well-known, methods of obtaining platelets from whole blood which produce blood platelet concentrates either a platelet rich plasma (PRP), or as platelets in platelet additive solution, suitable for in vitro storage. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of filing to practice the methods of Zheng et al. for cold storage of platelets using any one of the well known blood platelet concentrates taught by Tynngard with a reasonable expectation of success.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie S. Wehbé, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0737. If the examiner is not available, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria Leavitt, can be reached at (571) 272-1085. For all official communications, the technology center fax number is (571) 273-8300. Please note that all official communications and responses sent by fax must be directed to the technology center fax number. For informal, non-official communications only, the examiner’s direct fax number is (571) 273-0737. For any inquiry of a general nature, please call (571) 272-0547.
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.
Dr. A.M.S. Wehbé
/ANNE MARIE S WEHBE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1634
Prosecution Insights