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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species in the reply filed on 11/07/2023 is acknowledged.
Applicant elected Claim 1, (ii) and SEQ ID NO: 37.
Claims 6 and 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/07/2023.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 are under consideration.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are indicated by “Fig.” rather than “FIG.” as required by 37 C.F.R § 1.84 (u)(1) (see also MPEP § 608.02 (V)). The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.” Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The drawings are indicated by “Fig.” rather than “FIG.” See objection to the drawings, above.
Spell out ASLV in addition to using the acronym. For example, “Avian sarcoma leukosis virus” if that is what it means. See Claim objection below as well as the U.S.C 112b rejection below.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: Change “Retroviral vector particle…” to “A retroviral vector particle…”.
Claim 2: Change “Retroviral vector particle…” to “The retroviral vector particle…”. Change “glycoprotein binds to SLC1A5 receptor” to “glycoprotein binds to a SLC1A5 receptor”.
Claim 3: Change “Retroviral vector particle…” to “The retroviral vector particle…”.
Claim 4: Change “Retroviral vector particle…” to “The retroviral vector particle…”.
Claim 5: Change “Retroviral vector particle…” to “The retroviral vector particle…”.
Claim 8: Change “Retroviral vector particle…” to “The retroviral vector particle…”.
Claim 8 recites “of one amino acid sequence”. For increased clarity, change “one” to “an” so it reads “An amino acid sequence comprising…”. Claim 8 recites “and one CTT of the group of SEQ ID NO: 32, SEQ ID NO: 33…”. Change to “and one CTT having the amino acid sequence selected from SEQ ID NO: 32…”.
Claim 9: Change “Retroviral vector particle…” to “The retroviral vector particle…”. Claim 9 recites “of one amino acid sequence”. For increased clarity, change “one” to “an” so it reads “An amino acid sequence comprising…”. Claim 9 recites “and one CTT of the group of SEQ ID NO: 31, SEQ ID NO: 33…”. Change to “and one CTT having the amino acid sequence selected from SEQ ID NO: 31…”.
Claim 10: Change “Retroviral vector particle…” to “The retroviral vector particle…”.
Spell out ASLV in addition to using the acronym. For example, “Avian sarcoma leukosis virus”.
Claim 11: Change “Process for transducing human cells by introducing…” to “A process for transducing human cells, comprising introducing…”. Change “the retroviral vector particle is one according…” to “the retroviral vector particle is according to claim 1”.
Claim 12: Change “Process according to claim 11” to “The process according to claim 11”. See USC 112b rejection below.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 9, 10, 12 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.
See claims 8, 9, 10, and 12 as submitted 11/07/2023.
Claim 8: The scope of claim 8 is unclear. The claim recites “consists of” followed by “comprising”. It is not clear what is included in the sequence.
Claim 9: The scope of claim 9 is unclear. The claims recites “consists of” followed by “comprising”. It is not clear what is included in the sequence.
Claim 10: It is unclear what the acronym “ASLV” means. It is also unclear what the phrase “based on ASLV” means. Other than disclosing ASLV, the specification does not define what the acronym ASLV means. For compact prosecution, ASLV is interpreted as Avian sarcoma leukosis virus, which is an example of an alpharetrovirus.
Claim 12: Claim 12 is unclear. The language “according to claim 11”, suggests that claim 12 is dependent on claim 11. However, the subject matter of claim 12, suggests a different process, e.g., “a process for producing a retroviral vector”(as recited in claim 12 ) versus “a process for transducing human cells”(as recited in claim 11). Additionally, the process for producing a retroviral viral vector particles from a packaging cell or producer cell should occur first and then the resulting viral vector particles would be used in a method/process for transducing specific human cells, such as hematopoietic cells. It is unclear why the word “particle” was deleted to only read “producing a “retroviral vector”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
See claims 1-5 as submitted 11/07/2023.
In view of the 2019 PEG (“The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG) found at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf ), based upon an analysis with respect to the claims as a whole, claim 1 does not recite something significantly different than a judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more (these claims are interpreted in light of the most recent Guidelines (See “Subject Matter Eligibility” found at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility; as well as Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Life Sciences at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-may-2016-ex.pdf )
These claims are analyzed for eligibility in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation. In view of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes and the Steps cited below (See flowchart at pages 10-11 at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf ), the claims are directed to an ineligible product as further detailed below.
In this case, claim 1 recites, reads on, or are directed to a composition of matter (Step 1) and recite natural phenomenon(s) (in this case, Baboon endogenous virus, an infectious Gammaretrovirus) that is directed to a judicial exception (in this case, a natural phenomenon)(Step 2A).
Claim 1 recites a retroviral vector particle, which is an alpharetroviral vector particle or a lentiviral vector particle or a gammaretroviral vector particle, the vector particle comprising in its envelope: (ii) a retroviral envelope glycoprotein comprising an ectodomain having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 21, a transmembrane domain having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 22, and one CTT having the amino acid sequence SEQ ID NO: 37.
In this case, the retroviral vector particle can be a gammaretroviral vector particle and the amino acid sequences, SEQ ID NO: 21, SEQ ID NO: 22 and SEQ ID NO: 37, read on Baboon endogenous virus envelope as taught by Girard-Gagnepain et al. (See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited)(see below 35 USC § 102 / §103 rejection). Thus, the retroviral vector particle reads on Baboon endogenous virus.
Thus, the claimed product of claim 1 is not markedly different from its naturally occurring counterpart (See Nature-Based Products, Example 4 (“Purified Proteins”) at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/mdc_examples_nature-based_products.pdf ; see also Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Life Sciences, 28. Vaccines, Claim 3). Claim 1 reads on naturally occurring Baboon endogenous virus and does not show a difference in characteristics between the claimed retroviral vector particle and naturally occurring Baboon endogenous virus. Thus, the claim also reads upon naturally occurring Baboon endogenous virus, or a composition of matter as recited in Step 1 and a natural phenomenon as recited in Step 2A. Claims 2-5 are rejected because they are dependent on claim 1 and they do not recite additional distinguishing structural features, rather merely an intended use (See MPEP 2111.02).
Thus, the claimed product of claim 1 is not markedly different from its naturally occurring counterpart (see Part I. A.3 of the Interim Eligibility Guidance, Example 2, p. 29). Thus, the claim also reads upon naturally occurring Baboon endogenous virus, or a composition of matter as recited in Step 1 and a natural phenomenon as recited in Step 2A.
The claim thus recites a nature-based product limitation that does not exhibit markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart, or is directed to a “product of nature” exception.
Further as to Step 2A in view of the 2019 PEG, in view of Prong 1 of Revised Step 2A, the claim recites a natural phenomenon.
As to Prong 2 of Step 2A, the instant claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (natural phenomenon according to MPEP 2106.04(b)) into a practical application. “Integration into a practical application’ requires an additional element(s) or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (See for example, Slide 18 of 2019 PEG training at http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/101.html ).
Further, in view of Step 2B and the “No” pathway, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 does not recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.101 in view of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, and the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / §103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Girard-Gagnepain et al. (Girard-Gagnepain)(US9249426B2)(See PTO 892 Notice of References Cited).
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 as submitted 11/07/2023.
Examiner Note: In light of the uncertainty expressed under the U.S.C 112(b) rejection, claims 8 and 9 are interpreted as an amino acid sequence consisting of, in 5’ to 3’ order, SEQ ID NO: 21, SEQ ID NO: 22, and SEQ ID NO: 37.
Regarding claim 1, Girard-Gagnepain teaches FIG. 1 and FIG 2. which show Baboon endogenous virus wild-type, BaEV wt glycoprotein (FIG. 1) and the titers of the pseudotyped lentiviral vector particle of BaEV wt (FIG 2.)(reads on a “retroviral particle which is a lentiviral vector particle”)(p. 2).
Girard-Gagnepain also teaches “the term “vector particle” denotes any particle liable to display the chimeric envelope glycoprotein or the modified BaEV envelope glycoprotein at its surface and to reversibly bind to a biological material. It is preferred that such a vector particle is a viral vector particle, in particular a retroviral vector particle”(p. 17)(reads on instant claim 1, “the vector particle comprising in its envelope”).
Girard-Gagnepain also teaches the wild-type BaEV envelope glycoprotein consists of the sequence SEQ ID NO: 2. Girard-Gagnepain further teaches “As known from the skilled person, the BaEV envelope glycoprotein is constituted by a cytoplasmic tail domain, a transmembrane domain and an extracellular domain. The regions corresponding to the cytoplasmic tail domain, the transmembrane domain and extracellular domain in the envelope glycoprotein sequence can be easily determined by the skilled person. Typically, the cytoplasmic tail domain is located between amino acids 530 to 564 of the wild-type BaEV envelope glycoprotein. Preferably, the wild-type cytoplasmic tail domain of the BaEV envelope glycoprotein comprises or consists in the amino acid sequence SEQ ID NO: 3. Typically, the transmembrane domain is located between amino acids 507 to 529 of the wild-type BaEV envelope glycoprotein. Preferably, the wild-type transmembrane domain of the BaEV envelope glycoprotein comprises or consists in the amino acid sequence SEQ ID NO: 4. Typically, the extracellular domain is located between amino acids 1 to 506 of the wild-type BaEV envelope glycoprotein. Preferably, the wild-type extracellular domain of the BaEV envelope glycoprotein comprises or consists in the amino acid sequence SEQ ID NO: 5”(p. 17).
Girard-Gagnepain further teaches:
Baboon endogenous virus (BaEV) envelope glycoprotein, SEQ 5 with 100% Query Match to instant SEQ ID NO 21 (see Result #1, BAM92239), us-18-289-787a-21.rag, 08/25/2026, in supplemental contents tab).
Baboon endogenous virus envelope glycoprotein transmembrane domain, SEQ ID 4 with 100% Query Match to instant claim SEQ ID NO: 22 (see Result # 1, BAM92238, us-18-289-787a-22.rag, 08/25/2026, in supplemental contents tab).
BaEV envelope glycoprotein cytoplasmic tail domain, SEQ ID 3, with 100% Query Match to instant SEQ ID NO: 37 (see Result # 15, BAM92237, us-18-289-787a-237.rag, 08/25/2026, in supplemental contents tab).
SEQ ID NO: 3: NRLTAFINDKLNIIHAMVLTQQYQVLRTDEEAQD
SEQ ID NO: 37: NRLTAFINDKLNIIHAMVLT
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the envelope glycoprotein binds to SLC1A5” is a property of the envelope glycoprotein already recited in claim 1 (See MPEP 2112: 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims: I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES: Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id..
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 5, all three claims state intended use (e.g., “for use in…”) which does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art (See MPEP 2111.02: During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Regarding claim 8, Girard-Gagnepain teaches “Preferably, said retroviral vector particle is selected from the group consisting of an oncoviral vector particle, including murine leukemia virus (MLV), avian leukosis virus (ALV)”(p. 17). Avian leukosis virus is an example of an alpharetrovirus (reads on instant claim 8, “alpharetroviral particle”).
Regarding claim 9, Girard-Gagnepain teaches “Preferably, said retroviral vector particle is selected from the group consisting of…a lentiviral vector particle, such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), e.g. HIV-1 or HIV-2, Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV)…”(p. 17)(reads on instant claim 9, ”a lentiviral particle”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Girard-Gagnepain teaches Baboon endogenous virus (BaEV) envelope glycoprotein, SEQ ID 2 with 100% Query Match to an amino acid sequence comprising SEQ ID NO: 21, SEQ ID NO: 22 and SEQ ID NO: 37 (see Result #15, BAM92236, us-18-289-787a-21fus22fus37.minpct95.rag, 08/25/2026, in supplemental contents tab).
Regarding claim 10, Girard-Gagnepain teaches “Preferably, said retroviral vector particle is selected from the group consisting of an oncoviral vector particle, including murine leukemia virus (MLV), avian leukosis virus (ALV)”(p. 17)(reads on instant claim 10, “the vector particle is a viral particle based on ASLV”). For compact prosecution, ASLV is interpreted as Avian sarcoma leukosis virus, which is an example of an alpharetrovirus. Note: Avian sarcoma leukosis virus and avian leukosis virus are the same virus.
In view of the foregoing, all the claimed limitations are found in one reference and are
taught to be optional variations to a base product they exemplify. As such, the
claimed product in claims 1, 8, 9, 10 is within the scope of Girard-Gagnepain’s invention, and thus Girard-Gagnepain’s invention renders claims 1, 8, 9, 10 prima facie obvious. The
rationale to support this conclusion of obviousness is that Girard-Gagnepain provides a teaching, suggestion, and motivation to substitute different variables disclosed within the reference. Furthermore, there is no evidence on the record that indicates that the claimed product exhibits any unexpected results compared to the prior art.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girard-Gagnepain as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 above, and further in view of Frost et al. (Frost)(US20210107949A1)(See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited).
See claims 11-12 as submitted 11/07/2023.
Girard-Gagnepain teaches claim 1 but focuses primarily on a different truncated form of BaEV, with a deletion of the inhibitory R peptide after the nucleotides encoding the amino acid sequence “HAM” (rather than the instant invention, with a deletion after the amino acid sequence “VLT”) and its use in gene therapy.
Frost, however, takes a broader view and teaches a “replication incompetent recombinant retroviral particle…wherein one or more pseudotyping elements is selected from…a BaEV glycoprotein”(reference claim 20) while also acknowledging other embodiments of the BaEV glycoprotein to include different deletions of the R peptide. Frost teaches “ In some embodiments, the pseudotyping element is a viral envelope protein. In some embodiments, the viral envelope protein is one or more of the feline endogenous virus (RD114) envelope protein…the baboon retroviral envelope glycoprotein (BaEV)…or a fragment of any thereof that retains the ability to bind to resting T cells and/or resting NK cells”[0519].
Regarding claim 11, Frost teaches “Provided herein are methods, compositions, and kits that help overcome issues related to the effectiveness and safety of methods for transducing and/or genetically modifying lymphocytes such as T cells and/or NK cells” (reads on instant claim 11, “processing for transducing human cells…”). Frost also teaches transgene expression cassettes (see FIG. 6, FIGs. 9-11).
Regarding claim 12, Frost teaches “As is known, such retroviral particles, for example lentiviral particles, typically are formed in packaging cells by transfecting the packing cells with plasmids that include packaging components such as Gag, Pol and Rev, an envelope or pseudotyping plasmid that encodes a pseudotyping element, and a transfer, genomic, or retroviral (e.g. lentiviral) expression vector, which is typically a plasmid on which a gene(s) or other coding sequence of interest is encoded. Accordingly, a retroviral (e.g. lentiviral) expression vector includes sequences (e.g. a 5′ LTR and a 3′ LTR flanking e.g. a psi packaging element and a target heterologous coding sequence) that promote expression and packaging after transfection into a cell”[0065](reads on instant claim 12, “producing a retroviral vector by expressing the retroviral vector particle from plasmids contained in the packaging cell”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Girard-Gagnepain (retroviral vector particles, truncated BaEV glycoprotein) and Frost (retroviral vector particles, BaEV glycoprotein, T/NK cell modification, and process for transduction and producing a retroviral vector) to arrive at the current invention for the benefit of being able to use gene therapy to treat defects in human cells such as those involved in immunity/immune response and/or implicated in cancerous malignancies (See MPEP 2143, Rationale A. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and Rationale G. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for combining the teachings of Girard-Gagnepain (retroviral vector particles, truncated BaEV glycoprotein) and Frost (retroviral vector particles, BaEV glycoprotein, and T/NK cell modification) to arrive at the current invention. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known, successfully demonstrated in the context of retroviral vector particles, gene therapy and/or, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Claire Cornelius whose telephone number is (571) 272-0860. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0930-1700.
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, Thomas J. Visone can be reached at (571) 270-0684. 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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1672
/M FRANCO G SALVOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672
Prosecution Insights