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
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and species (NS2-3; stabilizing agent; SEQ ID NO: 97; SEQ ID NO: 82; SEQ ID NO: 39; SEQ ID NO: 87) in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/17/2026.
Claims 1-9, 16-21 are under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 8/24/2023; 3/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. 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).
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
4. REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," 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 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) 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") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) 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 of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the drawings (Fig. 9) are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Sequence identifiers for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Replacement and annotated drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
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.
5. Claims 3, 18 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 3, 18 as submitted 8/17/2026.
Claims 3, 18 recite “82” and “87”. It is not clear if the claims intend to recite SEQ ID NOs: 82 and 87 or not.
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.
6. Claims 1, 4-9, 16, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lokhandwala et al. ("Priming Cross-Protective Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus- Specific Immunity Using Live-Vectored Mosaic Antigens," PLoS ONE, Vol 12, No 1, e0170425 (2017))(cited in the IDS submitted on 8/24/2023) in view of Mwangi et al. (WO2021087520A2)(cited in the IDS submitted on 3/28/2025).
See claims 1, 4-9, 16, 19-21 as submitted 8/17/2026.
Lokhandwala et al. teaches: vaccine (p. 3); including polypeptide chimeras including NS2-3 antigens (p. 4)(as recited in claims 1, 16); use of adjuvant (p. 5)(as recited in claims 6, 20); vector (Fig. 5)(as recited in claim 7); genotypes 1 and 2 (p. 2)(as recited in claim 5); wherein antigens incorporated neutralizing epitopes (p. 3), as well as wherein clearance of BVDV infections has been associated with CD4 and CD8 T cell responses (p. 2)(as recited in claims 4, 19).
Lokhandwala et al. does not teach stabilizing agent (elected species)(as recited in claims 1, 16).
Mwangi et al. teaches: BVDV vaccine (title); stabilizers such as albumin [0022](as recited in claims 1, 16); BPI3Vc (abstract)(as recited in claims 8, 16).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use agent as taught by Mwangi et al. with the composition as taught by Lokhandwala et al. Lokhandwala et al. teaches BVDV vaccine compositions, and Mwangi et al., which also teaches BVDV vaccine compositions, teaches the advantage of using stabilizers in such vaccine compositions as well as such vectors (See MPEP 2144.06: Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose).
As to claim 9, 21, such results are considered to flow from the composition as recited in claims 1, 16 (see also MPEP 2111.04: The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a wherein clause limited a process claim where the clause gave meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps ); In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a whereby clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention. Id. However, the court noted that a whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat l Ass n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for
using agent as taught by Mwangi et al. with the composition as taught by Lokhandwala et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials (BVDV vaccines as taught by Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al.) and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, 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.
7. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. as applied to claims 1, 4-9, 16, 19-21 above, and further in view of Graham et al. (US20120258127)(See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited).
See claim 2 as submitted 8/17/2026.
See the teachings of Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. above.
Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. does not teach SEQ ID NO: 97.
Graham et al. teaches: polypeptides for vaccinating; including SEQ ID NO: 4 comprising sequence with 100% identity with instant SEQ ID NO: 97 (See Result 5 of STIC Sequence Search Result 20260831_020915_us-18-547-842-97.rag in Supplemental Content Tab).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use BVDV antigen as taught by Graham et al. with the composition as taught by Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. teaches BVDV antigen, and Graham et al. teaches such an antigen (See MPEP 2144.06: Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using BVDV antigen as taught by Graham et al. with the composition as taught by Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials (BVDV vaccines as taught by Graham et al. and Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al.) and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, 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.
8. Claims 3, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. as applied to claims 1, 4-9, 16, 19-21 above, and further in view of Meyers et al. (WO2009156448)(See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited).
See claims 3, 17 as submitted 8/17/2026.
See the teachings of Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. above.
Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. does not teach SEQ ID NO: 82; SEQ ID NO: 39.
Meyers et al. teaches: polypeptides for vaccinating; including SEQ ID NO: 5 comprising sequence with 100% identity with instant SEQ ID NO: 82 (See Result 4 of STIC Sequence Search Result 20260831_020915_us-18-547-842-82.rag in Supplemental Content Tab); SEQ ID NO: 6 comprising sequence with 100% identity with instant SEQ ID NO: 39 (See Result 7 of STIC Sequence Search Result 20260831_020915_us-18-547-842-39.rag in Supplemental Content Tab).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use BVDV antigens as taught by Meyers et al. with the composition as taught by Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. teaches BVDV antigen, and Meyers et al. teaches such antigens (See MPEP 2144.06: Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using BVDV antigens as taught by Meyers et al. with the composition as taught by Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials (BVDV vaccines as taught by Meyers et al. and Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al.) and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, 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.
9. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. as applied to claims 1, 4-9, 16, 19-21 above, and further in view of Brownlie et al. (WO2009056541)(See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited).
See claim 18 as submitted 8/17/2026.
See the teachings of Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. above.
Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. does not teach SEQ ID NO: 87.
Brownlie et al. teaches: vaccines for preventing or treating pestivirus, BVDV; including SEQ ID NO: 2 comprising sequence with 100% identity with instant SEQ ID NO: 87 (See Result 14 of STIC Sequence Search Result 20260831_020915_us-18-547-842-87.rag in Supplemental Content Tab).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use BVDV antigen as taught by Brownlie et al. with the composition as taught by Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. teaches BVDV antigen, and Brownlie et al. teaches such an antigen (See MPEP 2144.06: Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using BVDV antigen as taught by Brownlie et al. with the composition as taught by Lokhandwala et al. in view of Mwangi et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials (BVDV vaccines as taught by Brownlie et al. and Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al.) and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, 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.
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.
10. Claims 1, 4-9, 16, 19-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. (cited above).
See claims 1, 4-9, 16, 19-21 as submitted 8/17/2026.
Claims 1,3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 recite a vector comprising a Bovine Parainfluenza 3 Virus Type C (BPI3Vc) backbone having at least 96% sequence homology with SEQ ID NO. 1 and at least one antigenic insert sequence from a pathogen other than BPI3V.
Claims 1,3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 does not teach BVDV antigen; stabilizing agent.
See the teachings of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use vector as recited in claims 1,3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 with composition as taught by Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. teach use of vector as well as BPI3Vc vector, and claims 1,3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 recite such a vector (See MPEP 2144.06: Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using vector as recited in claims 1,3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 with composition as taught by Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, 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.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
11. Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. as applied to claims 1, 4-9, 16, 19-21 above and further in view of Graham et al. (cited above).
See claim 2 as submitted 8/17/2026.
See the teachings of claims 1, 3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. above.
Claims 1, 3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. does not teach SEQ ID NO: 97.
See the teachings of Graham et al. above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use BVDV antigen as taught by Graham et al. with the composition as taught by claims 1, 3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. Claims 1, 3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. teach BVDV antigen, and Graham et al. teaches such an antigen (See MPEP 2144.06: Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using BVDV antigen as taught by Graham et al. with the composition as taught by claims 1, 3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
12. Claims 3, 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. as applied to claims 1, 4-9, 16, 19-21 above and further in view of Meyers et al. (cited above).
See claims 3, 17 as submitted 8/17/2026.
See the teachings of claims 1,3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. above.
Claims 1,3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. does not teach SEQ ID NO: 82; SEQ ID NO: 39.
See the teachings of Meyers et al. above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use BVDV antigens as taught by Meyers et al. with the composition as taught by claims 1,3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. Claims 1,3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. teaches BVDV antigens, and Meyers et al. teaches such antigens (See MPEP 2144.06: Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using BVDV antigens as taught by Meyers et al. with the composition as taught by claims 1,3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
13. Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. as applied to claims 1, 4-9, 16, 19-21 above and further in view of Brownlie et al. (cited above).
See claim 18 as submitted 8/17/2026.
See the teachings of claims 1, 3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. above.
Claims 1, 3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. does not teach SEQ ID NO: 87.
See the teachings of Brownlie et al. above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use BVDV antigen as taught by Brownlie et al. with the composition as taught by claims 1, 3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. Claims 1, 3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. teach BVDV antigen, and Brownlie et al. teaches such an antigen (See MPEP 2144.06: Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using BVDV antigen as taught by Brownlie et al. with the composition as taught by claims 1, 3-10 of copending Application No. 17755359 in view of Lokhandwala et al. and Mwangi et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
14. With respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 and claim 1, the specification teaches wherein: stabilizing agent refers to an ingredient, such as for example saccharides, trehalose, mannitol, saccharose, albumin and alkali salts of ethylendiamintetracetic acid, and the like, to increase and/or maintain product shelf-life and/or to enhance stability [0022].
15. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M FRANCO G SALVOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4468. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 to 5:00.
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 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.
/M FRANCO G SALVOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672
Prosecution Insights