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 . 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6 Oct, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants elected the formulation of claim 36 without traverse in the reply filed on 10 Dec, 2023. The traversal was found unpersuasive and the election/restriction requirement made final in the office action of 30 Jan, 2025.
Claims Status
Claims 32, 35, 37-39, 44-48, 50, and 51 are pending.
Claims 32, 48, and 50 have been amended.
Claims 35, 37-39, and 44-47 have been withdrawn from consideration due to an election/restriction requirement.
Claim Objections
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim has a label of “currently amended,” but is not marked up to show amendments, and appears to be identical to the same claim number in the previously submitted claim set. Appropriate correction is required.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 32-34, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph due to uncertainty as to if a given patient would meet the Shirmer test improvement is hereby withdrawn due to amendment.
The rejection of claims 32-34, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite due to variability in Shirmer test scores is hereby withdrawn due to amendment, as a given patient no longer needs to meet the limitation.
The rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form is hereby withdrawn due to amendment.
Maintained/Modified Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 32, 42, 48, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al (JAVMA (1991) 199(8) p1043-1046) in view of Mitra et al (US 20140057854, cited by applicants) and Kymionis et al (Clin. Ophthalmol. (2008) 2(4) p829-836, cited by applicants).
Morgan et al discuss treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca in dogs with cyclosporine (title). 60 dogs were treated, of which 40 had bilateral disease (p1043, 2nd column, 3d paragraph). Average duration of illness was 20.2 months (p1043, 5th paragraph). One drop of cyclosporine was administered to each affected eye twice a day (p1043, 2nd column, 6th paragraph). Dogs were examined at 3-4 month intervals for 12 to 30 months (p1044, 1st column, 2nd paragraph). Of the 60 dogs, 6 were tapered to once daily administration and an additional 6 dogs discontinued use (p1045, 1st column, 3d paragraph), indicating that 48 of the dogs were treated for at least 12 months. Before administration, Schirmer test values varied from 0-10 mm/min, with an average of 3.09. Afterwards, the average improved to 12.69 mm/min. Given that the Schirmer test is typically run for 5 min (note Whitcher et al, 3d page, 3d paragraph), this indicates that most of the dogs had greater than 10 mm improvement in this regard.
The difference between this reference and the examined claims is that this reference uses a different cyclosporine formulation.
Mitra et al describe a mixed nanomicellular cyclosporine formulation, made by dissolving HCO-40 (considered the same as hydrogenated 40 polyoxyl caster oil) and octoxynol-40 in water, with a second container containing a mixture of phosphates, sodium chloride, and cyclosporine A made up. The two containers were mixed, then PVP K90 (povidone K90) in water was added, followed by dilution to an appropriate volume (paragraph 186). Note that these are the same ingredients as in the formulations of the examined application. The HCO-40 is described as useful in some embodiments at a concentration between 0.5 and 2% (paragraph 11), while the octoxynol-40 is disclosed to be useful in some embodiments at a concentration between 0.005 and 0.5% (paragraph 7) or about 0.05% (paragraph 11). The active agent can be at least about 0.09% or between 0.08 and 0.12% (paragraph 6). Tonicity adjustment can use sodium chloride, with a total tonicity about 250-350 mOsmol/kg (paragraph 65), and a bioadhesive polymer, such as PVP, at a concentration of about 0.1 to 5% (w/v). The pH is preferably between 5 and 8 (paragraph 64). The formulation can be used to treat disorders such as keratoconjunctivitis sicca (paragraph 43) in patients including dogs and humans (paragraph 29). Example 2 (paragraph 167-169) describe a method of making the formulation involving dissolving the therapeutic, surfactant, and cosurfactant in solvent, evaporating off the solvent under vacuum leaving a film, resuspending in water, adding buffer at an appropriate pH, and sterile filtering; identical to the method of claim 50. Another example (example 3, paragraphs 170 and 171), describes a different method, where hydrogenated castor oil was melted, then the therapeutic and the surfactant were added, followed by buffer, and sterile filtered, very similar to the method of claim 48. This reference discusses a genus of formulations that include the one used in the examined claims.
Kymionis et al describe cyclosporine to treat dry eye (title). A study varying the concentration of cyclosporine found that 0.1% (very close to the 0.09% claimed by applicants) seemed to produce the most consistent improvements in subjective and objective end points (p833, 1st column, 1st paragraph). This reference teaches using cyclosporine at concentrations similar to those claimed by applicants. This reference renders obvious concentrations very similar to those of applicants for cyclosporine.
Therefore, it would be obvious to use the formulations of Mitra et al to treat the dry eyes of Morgan et al, because Morgan et al states that these formulations can be used to treat that disorder. As this is the same drug as used by Morgan et al, an artisan in this field would attempt this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Morgan et al discusses treatment of a patient population that overlaps with that of the examined claims, using a different formulation of the same therapeutic. Morgan et al show that a significant proportion of the dogs have at least a 10 mm increase in Schirmer score. Mitra et al discusses the same ingredients as the formulations of the examined claims, in concentration ranges that overlap, and Kymonis et al describe a starting point for optimization. Alternatively, differences in concentration, absent secondary considerations, are not considered a patentable distinction (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Thus, the combination of references renders obvious claims 32, 34, 36, and 42.
The dogs have every feature applicants have states are required for a 17.9% chance of at least a 10 mm increase in Schirmer score, rendering obvious claim 33.
Mitra et al discusses different ways of preparing the formulations that render obvious claims 48 and 50.
response to applicant’s arguments
Applicants argue that the amount of phosphate is dictated by the pH, and claim improved stability, an unexpected result
Applicant's arguments filed 6 Oct, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants appear to have misread the reason the previous set of arguments is not persuasive. The issue is that the claims are not commensurate in scope with the unexpected results (MPEP 716.02(d)). The pH does not define the amount of phosphate buffer; according to the Henderson Hassleback equation, it only dictates the ratio of mono and dibasic salts. As noted previously, ionic strength affects stability, so varying this parameter is likely to affect applicant’s alleged unexpected results. It is not clear if the amount of povidone will make a difference in stability, or that the stability will remain improved when the amount of phosphate buffer is changed. There is no research presented describing why the formulation of the declaration is more stable, so it is difficult to extrapolate beyond the single formulation.
New Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 32 is 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.
The claim requires that if the formulation of the method is given to a population of patients that meet the claim limitations (6 month history of KCS and a clinical diagnosis of bilateral KCS), 17.9% will have a 10 mm or greater improvement in Schirmer test score. The only place the 17.9% appears in the disclosure as filed is figure 1, which does not define the patient population or even the disease treated, and does not mention conjunctival or corneal staining. Thus, these limitations comprise new matter.
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 32 is 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 32 requires that the formulation be capable of providing a greater than 10 mm improvement in Schirmer test score to 17.9% of the population of subjects with a history of at least 6 months of KCS and a diagnosis of bilateral KCS. The problem is that the population is not defined. Applicants state that the patient can be human or non-human animal (paragraph 86). The only place the 17.9% number comes from is fig 1, which is described as a comparison of Schirmer test scores between vehicle, 0.05 wt% cyclosporine, and 0.09% cyclosporine. Given that we don’t even know what species is being tested to give this result, what the exclusion criteria are, or even what disorder they have (if any), and that Morgan et al teaches that response rate, defined by Schirmer score varies on the baseline Schirmer score (p1044, 2nd column, 6th paragraph), it is not clear if the formulation given is capable of meeting this limitation for a given population of patients.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The legal basis for rejections under this statute was given above, and will not be repeated here.
Claim(s) 32, 42, 48, 50, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al (JAVMA (1991) 199(8) p1043-1046) in view of Mitra et al (US 20140057854, cited by applicants), Kymionis et al (Clin. Ophthalmol. (2008) 2(4) p829-836, cited by applicants), and the Oregon state college page on rotary evaporators (https://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/chemistry/courses/ch361-464/ch362/rotovap.htm, 2001).
The teachings of Morgan et al, Mitra et al, and Kymionis et al were given above, and will not be repeated here. Please note that these references render obvious claims 32, 42, 48, and 50.
The difference between the combination of these references and the remaining claim is that the references do not discuss evaporation with a rotary evaporator.
The Oregon state literature teaches that the rotary evaporator is a major advance in efficiency, reducing the time required to remove a solvent (1st page, 1st paragraph). The pot (a round bottom flask in the picture between the first and second paragraphs) rotates while a vacuum is pulled (1st page, 2nd paragraph). This reference discusses using rotary evaporators to remove solvent.
Therefore, it would be obvious to use a rotary evaporator for removing the solvent in the method of claim 50, to reduce the time required to remove the solvent, as described by the Oregon state literature. As rotary evaporators are commonly used in organic chemistry, an artisan in this field would attempt this machinery with a reasonable expectation of success.
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.
first rejection
Claims 32, 42, 48, 50, and 51 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/569,563 (US 20250009837) in view of Morgan et al (JAVMA (1991) 199(8) p1043-1046), Mitra et al (US 20140057854), and the Oregon state college page on rotary evaporators (https://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/chemistry/courses/ch361-464/ch362/rotovap.htm, 2001).
Competing claim 1 describes a method of treating an eye, using a cyclosporine solution. Competing claim 5 describes a formulation that reads on the formulation of claim 42, anticipating it.
The difference between the competing claims and the examined claims is that the competing claims treat a different condition, and do not discuss synthesis.
Morgan et al discuss treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca in dogs with cyclosporine (title). 60 dogs were treated, of which 40 had bilateral disease (p1043, 2nd column, 3d paragraph). Average duration of illness was 20.2 months (p1043, 5th paragraph). One drop of cyclosporine was administered to each affected eye twice a day (p1043, 2nd column, 6th paragraph). Dogs were examined at 3-4 month intervals for 12 to 30 months (p1044, 1st column, 2nd paragraph). Of the 60 dogs, 6 were tapered to once daily administration and an additional 6 dogs discontinued use (p1045, 1st column, 3d paragraph), indicating that 48 of the dogs were treated for at least 12 months. Before administration, Schirmer test values varied from 0-10 mm/min, with an average of 3.09. Afterwards, the average improved to 12.69 mm/min. Given that the Schirmer test is typically run for 5 min (note Whitcher et al, 3d page, 3d paragraph), this indicates that most of the dogs had greater than 10 mm improvement in this regard. This reference shows that cyclosporine is used to treat patients with KCS who have had the disorder for more than 6 months and are bilaterally affected.
Mitra et al describe a mixed nanomicellular cyclosporine formulation, made by dissolving HCO-40 (considered the same as hydrogenated 40 polyoxyl caster oil) and octoxynol-40 in water, with a second container containing a mixture of phosphates, sodium chloride, and cyclosporine A made up. The two containers were mixed, then PVP K90 (povidone K90) in water was added, followed by dilution to an appropriate volume (paragraph 186). Note that these are the same ingredients as in the formulations of the examined application. The HCO-40 is described as useful in some embodiments at a concentration between 0.5 and 2% (paragraph 11), while the octoxynol-40 is disclosed to be useful in some embodiments at a concentration between 0.005 and 0.5% (paragraph 7) or about 0.05% (paragraph 11). The active agent can be at least about 0.09% or between 0.08 and 0.12% (paragraph 6). Tonicity adjustment can use sodium chloride, with a total tonicity about 250-350 mOsmol/kg (paragraph 65), and a bioadhesive polymer, such as PVP, at a concentration of about 0.1 to 5% (w/v). The pH is preferably between 5 and 8 (paragraph 64). The formulation can be used to treat disorders such as keratoconjunctivitis sicca (paragraph 43) in patients including dogs and humans (paragraph 29). Example 2 (paragraph 167-169) describe a method of making the formulation involving dissolving the therapeutic, surfactant, and cosurfactant in solvent, evaporating off the solvent under vacuum leaving a film, resuspending in water, adding buffer at an appropriate pH, and sterile filtering; identical to the method of claim 50. Another example (example 3, paragraphs 170 and 171), describes a different method, where hydrogenated castor oil was melted, then the therapeutic and the surfactant were added, followed by buffer, and sterile filtered, very similar to the method of claim 48. This reference discusses a genus of formulations that include the one used in the examined claims, and how to synthesize them.
The Oregon state literature teaches that the rotary evaporator is a major advance in efficiency, reducing the time required to remove a solvent (1st page, 1st paragraph). The pot (a round bottom flask in the picture between the first and second paragraphs) rotates while a vacuum is pulled (1st page, 2nd paragraph). This reference discusses using rotary evaporators to remove solvent.
Therefore, it would be obvious to use the formulation of the competing claim to treat the disorder of Morgan et al, as Morgan et al teaches that cyclosporine useful for treating that disorder. As this therapeutic is commonly used to treat this disorder, an artisan in this field would attempt this therapy with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to use the formulation protocols of Mitra et al, as a substitution of one known element (the synthesis of Mitra et al) for another (the unspecified synthesis of the competing claims) yielding expected results (the formulation). As the formulations of Mitra et al are genera that include the formulation of the competing claims, an artisan in this field would attempt this process with a reasonable expectation of success.
Finally, it would be obvious to use a rotary evaporator for removing the solvent in the method of claim 50, to reduce the time required to remove the solvent, as described by the Oregon state literature. As rotary evaporators are commonly used in organic chemistry, an artisan in this field would attempt this machinery with a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
second rejection
Claims 42, 43, 48, 50, and 51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,918,694 (cited by applicants) in view of Mitra et al (US 20140057854, cited by applicants) and the Oregon state college page on rotary evaporators (https://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/chemistry/courses/ch361-464/ch362/rotovap.htm, 2001).
Competing claim 1 gives a formulation that anticipates examined claim 42, while competing claim 2 anticipates examined claim 43. Competing claim 4 is identical to examined claim 48.
The difference between the competing claims and the examined claims is that the competing claims do not describe the synthesis of claims 50 and 51.
Mitra et al describe a mixed nanomicellular cyclosporine formulation, made by dissolving HCO-40 (considered the same as hydrogenated 40 polyoxyl caster oil) and octoxynol-40 in water, with a second container containing a mixture of phosphates, sodium chloride, and cyclosporine A made up. The two containers were mixed, then PVP K90 (povidone K90) in water was added, followed by dilution to an appropriate volume (paragraph 186). Note that these are the same ingredients as in the formulations of the examined application. The HCO-40 is described as useful in some embodiments at a concentration between 0.5 and 2% (paragraph 11), while the octoxynol-40 is disclosed to be useful in some embodiments at a concentration between 0.005 and 0.5% (paragraph 7) or about 0.05% (paragraph 11). The active agent can be at least about 0.09% or between 0.08 and 0.12% (paragraph 6). Tonicity adjustment can use sodium chloride, with a total tonicity about 250-350 mOsmol/kg (paragraph 65), and a bioadhesive polymer, such as PVP, at a concentration of about 0.1 to 5% (w/v). The pH is preferably between 5 and 8 (paragraph 64). The formulation can be used to treat disorders such as keratoconjunctivitis sicca (paragraph 43) in patients including dogs and humans (paragraph 29). Example 2 (paragraph 167-169) describe a method of making the formulation involving dissolving the therapeutic, surfactant, and cosurfactant in solvent, evaporating off the solvent under vacuum leaving a film, resuspending in water, adding buffer at an appropriate pH, and sterile filtering; identical to the method of claim 50. Another example (example 3, paragraphs 170 and 171), describes a different method, where hydrogenated castor oil was melted, then the therapeutic and the surfactant were added, followed by buffer, and sterile filtered, very similar to the method of claim 48. This reference discusses a genus of formulations that include the one used in the examined claims, and how to synthesize them.
The Oregon state literature teaches that the rotary evaporator is a major advance in efficiency, reducing the time required to remove a solvent (1st page, 1st paragraph). The pot (a round bottom flask in the picture between the first and second paragraphs) rotates while a vacuum is pulled (1st page, 2nd paragraph). This reference discusses using rotary evaporators to remove solvent.
Therefore, it would be obvious to use the synthesis method of Mitra et al, as a substitution of one known element (the synthesis method of the competing claims) for another (the synthesis method of Mitra et al) yielding expected results (formulation). As the formulations of Mitra et al comprise a genus that includes the formulation of the competing claims, an artisan in this field would attempt this process with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to use a rotary evaporator for removing the solvent in the method of claim 50, to reduce the time required to remove the solvent, as described by the Oregon state literature. As rotary evaporators are commonly used in organic chemistry, an artisan in this field would attempt this machinery with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7214. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/FRED H REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658