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 .
Priority
The instant application, filed on October 25, 2023, is a national stage entry of International Application No. PCT/EP2022/060833, filed April 25, 2022, which claims priority to European Patent Application No. EP21171084.3, filed on April 29, 2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR § 1.55.
Status of Claims
Applicants’ preliminary amendments received October 25, 2023, are acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-2 are maintained in their original form. Claims 3-8 are amended.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement has been filed.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
See Specification at 67, hyperlink to “researchdisclosure” under the NMR experimental section.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation of the variable R11b in claim 1 is missing an “or” between “C3-C6-cycloalkyl, methoxyethyl”.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation of the variable R4 is claim 2 is missing an “or” between “hydrogen, C1-C3-alkyl.
The recitation of the variable R8 in claim 2 is missing an “or” between “halogen, C1-C3alkyl”.
The recitation of the variable R11b in claim 2 is missing an “or” between “C3-C6-cycloalkyl, methoxyethyl”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 8 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 is Indefinite
Claim 1 recites “a compound of general formula (I) wherein … R8 represents … R11-NH-(C=O)-…” (emphasis added). R11 is not defined in the claim. Further, the Specification fails to define such a R11 for a compound of general formula (I). See, e.g., Specification at 5.
Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear, and claim 1 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 5 and 8 are Indefinite
Claim 5 recites “[t]he use of a compound of general formula (I) according to claim 1, as an antagonist or inhibitor of G protein-coupled receptor 84 (GPR84)” (emphasis added). Claim 8 recites “[t]he use of a compound of general formula (II) … for the preparation of a compound of general formula (I) according to claim 1” (emphasis added). Each claim attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process. A claim that merely states the “use” of a compound, but do not define a process with method steps such as “administering”, “reacting”, or any other method step(s), fails to apprise the public as to the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. See Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) (a claim which read: "[a] process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon" was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced); MPEP 2713.05(q).
With respect to claim 5, it is unclear what process or method steps are encompassed by “[t]he use of” the compound as an GPR84 antagonist. The claim does not recite any active steps, such as administering the compound to a subject, that would define the method. Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what method steps are encompassed by the “use” of the compound of general formula (II) in the “preparation of a compound of general formula (I) according to claim 1”. While the Specification describes several synthetic schemes involving these compounds, see, e.g., Specification at 49-56, and Schemes 1 and 2, the claim recites none of these steps.
Accordingly, claims 5 and 8 are rejected as indefinite. Because the claims require considerable speculation as to their scope, a prior art rejection is not made at this time. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962); MPEP 2173.06.
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 5 and 8 Fail to Recite Patent Eligible Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because each claim recites “[t]he use of” (emphasis added) a compound but does not recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claim 5 recites “[t]he use of a compound of general formula (I) according to claim 1, as an antagonist or inhibitor of G protein-coupled receptor 84 (GPR84)” (emphasis added). Claim 8 recites “[t]he use of a compound of general formula (II) … for the preparation of a compound of general formula (I) according to claim 1” (emphasis added). As explained above in the section regarding indefiniteness of these claims, neither of these claims recite any positive, active steps such as “administering”, “reacting”, or any other method step(s), necessary to determine how “[t]he use” of these compounds is practiced. Further, a claim that recites a “the use of” a compound, without more, does not claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and fails to comply with 35 USC 101. See In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961) ("one cannot claim a new use per se, because it is not among the categories of patentable inventions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 101 "); MPEP 2173.05(q).
Accordingly, claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for failing to recite patent eligible subject matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are not Patentably Distinct from Claim 1 of US’666
Claims 1-3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,570,666 B2, hereinafter “US’666”. US’666 and the instant application are commonly owned by Applicant and share inventors. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the presently claimed protium isotopologues of the instant claim 1 and the deuterium isotopologues of claim 1 of US’666 represents obvious modifications of the deuterium isotopologues claimed in US’666.
As shown below, claim 1 of US’666 and the instant claim 11 share the identical scaffold and recite near word-for-word variable limitations for the same variables.
Variable
US’666 - Claim 1
Instant Application - Claim 1 (from PG-PUB)
PNG
media_image1.png
349
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
223
301
media_image2.png
Greyscale
R1, R2
PNG
media_image3.png
78
299
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
82
301
media_image4.png
Greyscale
R3, R7a, R7b
PNG
media_image5.png
168
299
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
27
301
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
26
146
media_image7.png
Greyscale
R4
PNG
media_image8.png
28
299
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
26
301
media_image9.png
Greyscale
R5, R6
PNG
media_image10.png
282
299
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
41
301
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
283
291
media_image12.png
Greyscale
R8
PNG
media_image13.png
67
299
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
70
291
media_image14.png
Greyscale
R9
PNG
media_image15.png
55
299
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
115
466
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
147
291
media_image17.png
Greyscale
R10
PNG
media_image18.png
45
466
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
12
220
media_image19.png
Greyscale
R11
PNG
media_image20.png
42
466
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
121
291
media_image21.png
Greyscale
R12
PNG
media_image22.png
25
340
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
17
129
media_image23.png
Greyscale
R13
PNG
media_image24.png
228
466
media_image24.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
108
291
media_image25.png
Greyscale
R14
N/A
PNG
media_image26.png
28
291
media_image26.png
Greyscale
R15
N/A
PNG
media_image27.png
16
126
media_image27.png
Greyscale
x, and additional variants
PNG
media_image28.png
44
466
media_image28.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image29.png
35
291
media_image29.png
Greyscale
Both claims therefore encompass 5H-furo[2,3-g]indazole-7-carboxamide derivatives substituted at the 2- position with optional substitution at the 8- position. Due to the substantial overlap between the Markush structures, US’666 claims many of the isotopologues of instant claim 1. For simplicity, compare, e.g., as shown below, a deuterated compound of claim 1 of US’666 wherein R1, R2, are H, R3 is phenyl, R7a, R7b are deuterium, and R4, R5, and R6 are H, with its protium isotopologue of the instant claim 1, wherein R1, R2, are H, R3 is phenyl, R7a, R7b are hydrogen, and R4, R5, and R6 are H.
US’666 - Claim 1
Deuterium isotopologue
Instant Application - Claim 1 (from PG-PUB)
Protium isotopologue
PNG
media_image30.png
222
371
media_image30.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image31.png
221
360
media_image31.png
Greyscale
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, in possession of the deuterated compounds of US’666, would have a reasonable expectation of success in replacing the deuterium located at R7a and R7b of the 5H-furo[2,3-g]indazole-7-carboxamide scaffold with hydrogen, because such a replacement would dramatically reduce the costs of synthesizing the resulting compounds. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be further motivated to replace the deuterium of US’666 with hydrogen in order to assess whether any utility of the compounds of US’666 is due to the deuterium, or if synthetic costs could instead be saved by replacing the deuterium with hydrogen.
Accordingly, any differences between the presently claimed protium isotopologues in the instant claim 1 and the deuterium isotopologues of claim 1 of US’666 represent obvious modifications of the deuterium isotopologues claimed in US’666. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention of claim 1 is not patentably distinct over claim 1 of US’666.
The above analysis also applies to the instant claims 2 and 3, wherein for the instant claim 2, R6 is methyl, and for the instant claim 3, R4 and R6 are methyl. Those structures are show below.
US’666 - Claim 1
Deuterium isotopologue
Instant Application - Claim 2
Protium isotopologue
PNG
media_image32.png
223
396
media_image32.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image33.png
220
400
media_image33.png
Greyscale
US’666 - Claim 1
Deuterium isotopologue
Instant Application - Claim 3
Protium isotopologue
PNG
media_image34.png
223
397
media_image34.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image35.png
220
398
media_image35.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, any differences between the presently claimed protium isotopologues in the instant claims 2 and 3 and the deuterium isotopologues of claim 1 of US’666 represent obvious modifications of the deuterium isotopologues claimed in US’666. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention of claims 2 and 3 is not patentably distinct over claim 1 of US’666.
Claim 4 is not Patentably Distinct from Claim 5 of US’666
Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of US’666. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a compound that is instantly claimed represents obvious modifications of a compound claimed in US’666.
Claim 5 of US’666 claims numerous compounds encompassed by claim 1 of US’666, one of which is named 8-methyl-2-(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)-N-[(2S)-tetrahydrofuran-2-ylmethyl]-4,5-dihydro-2H-furo[2,3-g]indazole-7-carboxamide, the “US’666 -(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)- analog”, which has the following structure.
PNG
media_image36.png
159
520
media_image36.png
Greyscale
US’666 -(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)- analog
The instant claim 4 similarly claims numerous compounds encompassed by the instant claim 1, one of which is named 8-methyl-2-(2-methylbenzyl)-N-[(2S)-tetrahydrofuran-2-ylmethyl]-4,5-dihydro-2H- furo[2,3-g]indazole-7-carboxamide, the “Instant -(2-methylbenzyl)-analog”, which has the following structure.
PNG
media_image37.png
188
488
media_image37.png
Greyscale
Instant -(2-methylbenzyl)-analog
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, in possession of the US’666 -(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)- analog of the 5H-furo[2,3-g]indazole-7-carboxamide scaffold, would have a reasonable expectation of success in tuning the utility of the compound by replacing the -(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)- unit with a -(2-methylbenzyl)- unit because such a modification would exchange the polar, electron withdrawing nature of the -(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)- unit with the non-polar, mildly electron-donating nature of the -(2-methylbenzyl)- unit. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be further motivated to replace the -(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)- unit from the US’666 -(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)- analog with a -(2-methylbenzyl)- unit in order to assess whether any utility of the US’666 -(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)- analog is due to the polar, electron withdrawing nature of the -(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)- unit, or instead may be affected by the non-polar, mildly electron-donating nature of the -(2-methylbenzyl)- unit.
Accordingly, any differences between the presently claimed Instant -(2-methylbenzyl)-analog of the instant claim 4 and the US’666 -(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)- analog of claim 5 of US’666 represents obvious modifications of the compound claimed in US’666. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention of claim 4 is not patentably distinct over claim 5 of US’666.
Claim 6 is not Patentably Distinct from Claim 6 of US’666
Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of US’666. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the presently claimed methods of preparing the protium isotopologues in the instant claim 1 and the methods of preparing the deuterium isotopologues of claim 1 of US’666 recited in claim 6 of US’666 represents obvious modifications of the synthetic strategy used to synthesize the deuterium isotopologues claimed in US’666. The claims are reproduced below.2
US’666 - Claim 6
Instant Application - Claim 6 (from PG-PUB)
PNG
media_image38.png
948
404
media_image38.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image39.png
437
312
media_image39.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image40.png
246
295
media_image40.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the claims recite word for word the same synthetic strategy. As evident from the discussion of the instant claim 1, the strategy used in US’666 - Claim 6 results in the Deuterium isotopologues – therefore, the difference between US’666 - Claim 6 and the instant claim 6 is the replacement of deuterium with hydrogen for the R7a and R7b variables. No additional protective groups are introduced, or synthetic steps claimed.
Accordingly, any differences between the presently claimed methods of preparing the protium isotopologues of the instant claim 1 and the methods of preparing the deuterium isotopologues of claim 1 of US’666 recited in claim 6 of US’666 represent obvious modifications of the same synthetic strategy used to synthesize the deuterium isotopologues claimed in US’666. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention of claim 6 is not patentably distinct over claim 6 of US’666.
Claim 7 is not Patentably Distinct from Claim 7 of US’666
Claim 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of US’666. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the presently claimed intermediates used in the methods of preparing the protium isotopologues in the instant claim 1 and the intermediates used in the methods of preparing the deuterium isotopologues of claim 1 of US’666 recited in claim 7 of US’666 represents obvious modifications of the same intermediates used in the same synthetic strategy employed to synthesize the deuterium isotopologues claimed in US’666. The claims are reproduced below.3
US’666 - Claim 7
Instant Application - Claim 7 (from PG-PUB)
PNG
media_image41.png
345
465
media_image41.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image42.png
380
466
media_image42.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the claims recite word for word the same intermediates used in the same synthetic strategy. As evident from the discussion of the instant claim 6, the strategy used in US’666 - Claim 6 results in the Deuterium isotopologues – therefore, the difference between US’666 - Claim 6 and the instant claim 6 is the replacement of deuterium with hydrogen for the R7a and R7b variables. No additional protective groups are introduced, or synthetic steps claimed. This carries through to the instant claim 7 and US’666 – claim 7, which recite the same intermediates, with the simple exchange of deuterium with hydrogen.
Accordingly, any differences between the presently claimed intermediates used in the methods of preparing the protium isotopologues of the instant claim 1 and the intermediates used in the methods of preparing the deuterium isotopologues of claim 1 of US’666 recited in claim 7 of US’666 represent obvious modifications of the same intermediates used in the same synthetic strategy employed to synthesize the deuterium isotopologues claimed in US’666. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention of claim 7 is not patentably distinct over claim 7 of US’666.
Provisional Double Patenting
Claim 1 is not Patentably Distinct from Claim 1 of the ’659 Application
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/547,659 (the “Reference Application”, or the “’659 Application”). The ’659 Application and the instant application are commonly owned by Applicant and share inventors. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of significant Markush overlap. Pending claim 1 of the ’659 Application is reproduced below from the PG-PUB.4 Claim 1 of the ’659 Application has not been amended since the application published. The claims are reproduced below.
(continued on following page)
Variable
The ’659 Application – Claim 1 (from PG-PUB)
Instant Application - Claim 1 (from PG-PUB)
PNG
media_image43.png
295
390
media_image43.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
223
301
media_image2.png
Greyscale
R1, R2
(R2 not used in the ’659 Application)
PNG
media_image44.png
35
390
media_image44.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
82
301
media_image4.png
Greyscale
R3, R7a, R7b
(R3, R6a, R6b
of the ’659 Application)
PNG
media_image45.png
84
390
media_image45.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image46.png
41
390
media_image46.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
27
301
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
26
146
media_image7.png
Greyscale
R4
(R2 of the ’659 Application)
PNG
media_image47.png
39
390
media_image47.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
26
301
media_image9.png
Greyscale
R5, R6
(R4, R5
of the ’659 Application)
PNG
media_image48.png
396
390
media_image48.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
41
301
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
283
291
media_image12.png
Greyscale
R8
(R7 of the ’659 Application)
PNG
media_image49.png
89
390
media_image49.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
70
291
media_image14.png
Greyscale
R9
(R8 of the ’659 Application)
PNG
media_image50.png
163
388
media_image50.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
147
291
media_image17.png
Greyscale
R10
(R9 of the ’659 Application)
PNG
media_image51.png
38
388
media_image51.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
12
220
media_image19.png
Greyscale
R11
(R10 of the ’659 Application)
PNG
media_image52.png
35
388
media_image52.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
121
291
media_image21.png
Greyscale
R12
(R11 of the ’659 Application)
PNG
media_image53.png
21
388
media_image53.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
17
129
media_image23.png
Greyscale
R13
(R12 of the ’659 Application)
PNG
media_image54.png
145
388
media_image54.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
108
291
media_image25.png
Greyscale
R14
N/A
PNG
media_image26.png
28
291
media_image26.png
Greyscale
R15
N/A
PNG
media_image27.png
16
126
media_image27.png
Greyscale
x, and additional variants
PNG
media_image55.png
35
388
media_image55.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image29.png
35
291
media_image29.png
Greyscale
Copending claim 1 of the ’659 Application recites the same protium isotopologue discussed above in the discussion of US’666, wherein a compound of general formula (I) of the pending claim 1 of the ’659 Application is represented by: R1, R2 are H, R3 is phenyl, R6a and R6b are H, and R4 and R5 are H.
Instant Application - Claim 1 (from PG-PUB)
Protium isotopologue
PNG
media_image31.png
221
360
media_image31.png
Greyscale
Therefore, copending claim 1 of the ’659 Application and the instant claim 1 overlap in scope due to significant Markush overlap. Accordingly, the instantly claimed invention of claim 1 is not patentably distinct over copending claim 1 of the ’659 Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Evan Redwood whose telephone number is (571) 272-8882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:15 AM - 4:45 PM.
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, Jeffrey S. Lundgren can be reached at 571-272-5541. 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.E.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1629
/JEFFREY S LUNDGREN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1629
1 The text of the instant claim 1 was taken from the PG-PUB (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2024/0239804 A1) to preserve formatting. Applicants have not amended the instant claim 1 since the instant application published.
2 The text of the instant claim 6 was taken from the PG-PUB (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2024/0239804 A1) to preserve formatting. Applicants have not amended the instant claim 6 since the instant application published.
3 The text of the instant claim 7 was taken from the PG-PUB (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2024/0239804 A1) to preserve formatting. Applicants have not amended the instant claim 7 since the instant application published.
4 The ’659 Application published as U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2024/0417407 A1.