DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s response and amendments received August 18, 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, and 30-32 have been canceled.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24-29, and 33 are pending in the instant application.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of group II, drawn to bispecific reagents comprising antibodies that bind Ang2 and antibodies that bind VEGF in the reply filed on August 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, and 29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 18, 2026.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 27, 28, and 33 are under examination in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS forms received 6/13/2024, 1/17/2025, 9/3/2025, 12/11/2025, and 8/18/2026 are acknowledged and the references cited therein have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 33 are objected to as being dependent upon claims drawn to inventions present in a withdrawn group. Amendment of the claims to place them into independent form or to depend from claims present in the elected inventive grouping such that the claims comprise all of the limitations present in the withdrawn claims. Note that failure to amend claims 3 and 33 to include the necessary limitations may delay or preclude allowance if the withdrawn claims and their associated inventions are not rejoined to the elected invention prior to allowance.
Further, these claims are objected to for the recitation of abbreviations without identifying the protein in question in the independent claim. More specifically, “VEGF” is an abbreviation for “vascular endothelial growth factor” while “Ang2” stands for “angiopoietin-2”. It is suggested that at the first appearance in the claim set, typically the independent claim, the full term is recited followed by the abbreviation in parenthetical notation. For example, “… anti-vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF A) antibody ….” is a preferred way of identifying that which is claimed as it enhances clarity while the use of the abbreviation in dependent/subsequent claims increases readability as the abbreviation is shorter.
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 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, and 28 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "for example" (presently recited as its abbreviation “e.g.”) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 3 also makes liberal use of “optionally” and “preferably” language and when combined with the “for example” language it is quite unclear exactly what limitations must be met to satisfy the conditions of the claim and what are merely things that applicant believes could be present in the claimed invention but which are actually required (that is, are not actual limitations and thus can safely be ignored for the purpose of claim construction). Amendment of the claim to clearly indicate exactly what is necessary to satisfy the claimed invention is likely to overcome this rejection, with the most obvious way to do so is the deletion of all instances of “optionally”, “preferably”, “e.g.”, and “for example” from all claims. Note that claims 7, 11, and 28 all recite one or more of the above discussed words that render the metes and bounds of the claimed invention indefinite, and the removal of such words from the claims is very strongly advised.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “at least 90%” which really is the range 90-100, and the claim also recites numerous subranges, with “at least 99%” being the narrowest statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Specifically, if the prior art discloses a sequence 92.5% identical , is it art? If 90% or more is seen as limiting than yes, but if the narrower ranges like the recited 95-100 are required then no, and thus now is the claim to be properly interpreted since the same art may or may not meet the claim limitations depending upon what exactly is deemed to be limiting. It is suggested that the broadest range be retained with smaller subranges moved to separate dependent claims if such subranges are truly desired as claim limitations. Note that this “range in a range” issue also appears in claims 11 and 13 and the suggested solution is the same as discussed previously.
Claim 6 depends from claim 3 and recites the limitations "light chain variable region VL of the anti-VEGF antibody-linker-heavy chain variable region VH of the anti-VEGF antibody-linker “ and well as “heavy chain variable region VH of the anti-VEGF antibody-linker-light chain variable region VL of the anti-VEGF antibody”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, any discussion of anti-VEFG antibody structure is claim 3 is preceded by “optionally” and if a feature is not required to be present (and note if it were it would be required rather than optional) it does not limit that which is claimed. Since the bispecific of claim 3 is only required to have a “region specifically binding to VEGF A” which is not ever required to be an antibody there can be no reasonable antecedent basis for limitations concerning “the” VH and VL of anything. Claim 7 depends from claim 6, but since the VH and VL limitation of claim 6 are not supported by claim 3, saying that such limitations in claim 7 are supported by claim 6 is tenuous.
Similarly, claim 10 depends directly from claim 3 and recites “first anti-VEGF VHH-linker-second anti-VEGF VHH-linker-anti-Ang2 VHH, wherein the first anti-VEGF VHH is the same as or different from the second anti-VEGF VHH” yet as discussed above no structure, VHH or otherwise, is actually recited for the domain that binds VEGF in claim 3. Claim 11 depends from claim 10, and give that the VHH limitations are not actually found in claim 3, relying on a claim that itself lacks appropriate antecedent basis to provide antecedent basis for a dependent claim is potentially unwise.
Amendment of the aforementioned claims to recite appropriate antecedent basis for the required, limiting claim terms is strongly suggested.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 27, 28, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has broadly claimed bispecific binding molecules that bind to the antigens VEGF A and Ang2. Such binding molecules are recited as comprising varying amounts of specific structure via reference to SEQ ID numbers. To support such claims, the specification discloses the synthesis of VHH by immunizing 2 llamas with either VEGF A or Ang2 (1 antigen per animal) followed by recovery and sequencing of clones from a library (example 1) which were then subjected to humanization (example 2). These individual reagents were then combined to make bispecific that bind both VEGF and Ang2 (example 9). Notably “IEX04-008” from the working examples comprises 2 anti-VEGF VHH joined to a single anti-Ang2 VHH in a head to tail fashion (essentially SEQ ID NO:22), while “IEX04-012” is a scFV based upon the prior art anti-VEGF antibody named ranibizumab joined to an anti-Ang-2 VHH (i.e. the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO:28).
The guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, § 1 "Written Description" Requirement make clear that if a claimed genus does not show actual reduction to practice for a representative number of species, then the Requirement may be alternatively met by reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the genus. See MPEP 2163. In The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly (43 USPQ2d 1398-1412) 19 F. 3d 1559, the court held that disclosure of a single member of a genus (rat insulin) did not provide adequate written support for the claimed genus (all mammalian insulins). In this same case, the court also noted: “A definition by function, as we have previously indicated, does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is. See Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen). It is only a definition of a useful result rather than a definition of what achieves that result. Many such genes may achieve that result. The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does “little more than outlin [e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate."). Accordingly, naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of, is not a description of that material.” The court has further stated that “Adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name or physical properties, not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention.” Id. at 1566, 43 USPQ2d at 1404 (quoting Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171, 25 USPQ2d at 1606). Also see Enzo-Biochem v. Gen-Probe 01-1230 (CAFC 2002). Recent court cases have emphasized the need for correlation between a well-defined structure and recited functional limitations. For example, the courts have indicated that recitation of an antibody which has specific functional properties in the absence of knowledge of the antibody sequences that give rise to said functional properties do not satisfy the requirements for written description. See for example AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotech. Inc. 759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014) as well as Amgen v. Sanofi, (Fed Cir, 2017-1480. 10/5/2017). Indeed, in Amgen the court indicates that that it is improper to allow patentees to claim antibodies by describing something that is not the invention, i.e. the antigen, as knowledge of the chemical structure of an antigen does not give the required kind of structure-identifying information about the corresponding antibodies, with the antibody-antigen relationship be analogized as a search for a key on a ring with a million keys on it. As such, knowledge of where an antibody binds provides no information as to what such an antibody necessarily looks like (i.e. its primary amino acid structure). Applicant is reminded that the courts have long ruled that “Possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features.” See University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 927, 69 USPQ2d at 1895. As such, disclosure of a screening assay to test for functional properties of an antibody (such as the epitope to which a test antibody binds or the fact that it does or does not inhibit some enzymatic process) does not provide evidence of possession of the antibody itself.
It should be pointed out that it is well established in the art that the formation of an intact antigen-binding site requires the association of the complete heavy and light chain variable regions of a given antibody, each of which consists of three different complementarity determining regions, CDR1, 2 and 3, which provide the majority of the contact residues for the binding of the antibody to its target epitope. The amino acid sequences and conformations of each of the heavy and light chain CDRs are critical in maintaining the antigen binding specificity and affinity which is characteristic of the parent immunoglobulin (Janeway et al., see entire selection). It is also known that single amino acid changes in a CDR can abrogate the antigen binding function of an antibody (Rudikoff et al., see entire document, particularly the abstract and the middle of the left column of page 1982). Thus, based upon the prior art, skilled artisans would reasonably understand that it is the structure of the CDRs within an antibody which gives rise to the functional property of antigen binding, the epitope to which said CDRs bind is an inherent property which appears to necessarily be present due to conservation of critical structural elements, namely the CDR sequences themselves.
In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 124 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017), relying upon Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed Cir. 2010), the following is noted. To show invention, a patentee must convey in its disclosure that is “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Demonstrating possession “requires a precise definition” of the invention. To provide this precise definition” for a claim to a genus, a patentee must disclose “a representative number of species within the scope of the genus of structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can visualize or recognize the member of the genus” (see Amgen at page 1358). Further, an adequate written description must contain enough information about the actual makeup of the claimed products – “a precise definition, such as structure, formula, chemic name, physical properties of other properties, of species falling with the genus sufficient to distinguish the gene from other materials”, which may be present in “functional terminology when the art has established a correlation between structure and function” (Amgen page 1361). Indeed, the courts have long ruled that “When a patent claims a genus using functional language to define a desired result, the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” See Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Also, “A sufficient description of a genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can "visualize or recognize" the members of the genus.” See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1297, reiterating Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568-69. It should also be noted that the USPTO has released a Memo on the Clarification of Written Description Guidance For Claims Drawn to Antibodies and Status of 2008 Training Materials, 02/22/2018. See uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/amgen_22feb2018.pdf. This Memo clarifies the applicability of USPTO guidance regarding the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) concerning the written description requirement for claims drawn to antibodies and states: “In view of the Amgen decision, adequate written description of a newly characterized antigen alone should not be considered adequate written description of a claimed antibody to that newly characterized antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional”. Further, the courts have indicated that the enablement and written description requirements of 35 USC 112 are separable as can be seen in for example Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111.
Artisans concur with such reasoning because they know that knowledge of a given antigen provides no information concerning the sequence/structure of antibodies that bind the given antigen. For example, Edwards et al. teach that over 1,000 different antibodies to a single protein can be generated, all with different sequences spanning almost the entire heavy and light chain germline repertoire (42/49 functional heavy chain germlines and 33 of 70 V-lambda and V-kappa light chain germlines, and with extensive diversity in the HCDR3 region sequences (that are generated by VDJ germline segment recombination) as well, see entire document). Similarly, Lloyd et al. teach that a large majority of VH/VL germline gene segments are used in the antibody response to an antigen, even when the antibodies were selected by antigen binding, as their sequencing studies revealed that out of 841 unselected and 5,044 selected antibodies, all but one of the 49 functional VH gene segments was observed (see entire document). Goel et al. disclose the synthesis of three mAbs that bind to the same short (12-mer) peptide and found that the sequences of these antibodies which bound the same epitope exhibited diverse V gene usage indicating their independent germline origin (see entire document). As such, it does not seem possible to predict the sequence/structure of an antibody that binds a given antigen as there does not appear to be any common or core structure present within all antibodies that gives rise to the function of antigen binding. Further, given data such as that of Edwards et al. indicating the diversity of sequence bound in a population of antibodies that bind to a given antigen no number of species appears to reasonably representative of the breadth of the genus of antibodies that bind the given antigen. Indeed, Kanyavuz et al. teach that “Theoretically, under physiological conditions, the human immune system can generate BCRs with 1026 distinct sequences, an astronomical number that is far greater than the calculated number of all B cell clones that can be generated during the lifespan of a healthy human (estimated to be 4 x 1014).
The instant claimed antibody products do not necessarily recite conventional antibodies that have six CDRs as discussed above but minimally comprise an anti-Ang2 immunoglobulin single variable domain, a class of antibodies derived from camelid heavy chain antibodies (VHH) which are distinct in that they comprise only a single polypeptide chain, and thus only have 3 CDRs which are responsible for antigen binding (see for example pages 31-33 of the instant specification). However, the majority of antigen contacts are still found within the CDRs (Ghahroudi et al., see entire document), and thus it is the structures of the CDRs which give rise to the function of antigen binding.
In claim 3, while the structure of the CDRs for the anti-Ang2 VHH are fixed via claim dependency, no specific structure is recited for the anti-VEGF portion. It is noted that some possible structures are recited, but all are recited as “optionally” and thus are not limitation of the claimed invention since they do not need to be present. Thus the anti-VEGF domain is recited using only functional language, i.e. indicating what is bound with no specific structure being provided that gives rise to the recited required function. Claim 6 recites that the anti-VEGF binding portion comprises a VH and VL, but given that most art antibodies comprise a VH and VL, such a recitation is of no help in identifying a correlation between a specific structure and the function of binding VEFG rather than say CD3 or TNFalpha. Claims 7 and 9 allow for mutations via percent identity limitations, but importantly as written such mutations are excluded from the CDRs which of course are the very structure which provides the function of antigen binding. Claim 10 is similar to claim 6 in that no specific structure is required to fulfil the function of binding VEGF, even though the anti-Ang2 binding domain is required to comprise specific CDR sequences defined by SEQ ID number per claim dependency. Claims 11 and 13 recite percent identity limitations but as constructed the claims require fixed CDR sequences and thus the mutations possible via percent identity must be located elsewhere, such as the framework residues. Claims 27 and 28 depend directly from claim 3 and do not rectify its deficiencies concerning in the VEGD binding domain as discussed above. Claim 33 does require defined CDR sequences for the VHH that binds VEGF, but no structure whatsoever is recited for the anti-Ang2 binding domain meaning that that portion of the claimed bispecific reagent is claimed using only functional language and need not even be an antibody. As discussed earlier in this rejection, given the literally astronomical numbers of distinct antibody sequences that can bind a given antigen, describing an antibody by what function it has (i.e. the antigen it binds) provides no insight into its structure (i.e. its primary amino acid sequence) and broadening the scope of claim 33 to encompass non-antibody based reagents that bind Ang2 simply makes an already incredibly large functionally defined genus even bigger.
Thus, the instant specification discloses a limited number of fusion polypeptides which are correlated with the function of binding VEGR and Ang2, yet the breath of structures encompassed by the instant claims is much broader than the constructs identified in the examples disclosed by applicant. Such broadened subject matter is not reasonably expected to maintain the function of binding the recited antigens for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, in view of the facts that the constructs disclosed by applicant are not representative of the breadth of structures encompassed by the instant claims and the fact that no correlation between structure and the function of antigen binding appears to be disclosed except for antibody binding domains comprise the correct number of CDR sequences (6 for conventional, 3 for VHH) defined by non-degenerate SEQ ID numbers known to bind the recited antigen in question, skilled artisans would reasonably conclude that applicants were not in possession of the full genus of claimed bispecific binding reagents at the time the instant application was filed.
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.
Claim 3, 6, 7, 9, 27, and 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 20, 23-30, and 32-47 of copending Application No. 19/630,009. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims anticipate that which is presently claimed.
It should be noted that the ‘009 application is a continuation of the instant application and as such all SEQ ID numbers and their referenced biological sequences are identical.
Copending claim 3 recites a bispecific binding molecule that binds VEFG A and Ang2, wherein the ANG2 binding portion is recited as being a VHH comprising a CDR1 of SEQ ID NO:16, a CDR2 or either SEQ ID NO:17 or 20, and a CDR3 of SEQ ID NO:18, and wherein the CEGF binding portion is a scFv wherein the VL CDRs are SEQ ID NOs:31-33 and the VH CDRs are SEQ ID NOs:35-37. The arrangements of the VH, VL and VHH domains in the copending claims are identical to that which is presently claimed (compare instant claim 6 to copending claim 35). Indeed, the copending claims recite the same anti-VEGF full length VH (i.e. SEQ ID NO:34), full length VL (SEQ ID NO:31), and anti-VEGF/Ang2 fusion construct (i.e. SEQ ID NO:28) as are recited in the instant claims (compare instant claim 7 to copending claim 8, and instant claim 9 to copending claims 9 and 39). The copending claims also recite the full length anti-ANG2 VHH of SEQ ID NOs:19 and 21 (see copending claim 33) as well as immunoconjugates (see copending claim 27). Given that the instant claims recite percent identity and other limitations which broaden the claimed inventions beyond the exact sequences recited by SEQ ID number, the copending claims necessarily anticipate the breadth of the instant claimed inventions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Szperka whose telephone number is (571)272-2934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Misook Yu can be reached at 571-272-0839. 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.
Michael Szperka
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1641
/MICHAEL SZPERKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1641
Prosecution Insights