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 .
Claims 84-99 are pending and under examination.
This is the First Office Action on the Merits of US 18/605,198 filed on 03/14/2024 which is a CON of 17/540,549 filed on 12/02/2021 (US Patent 12029794) which is a CON of 17/395,369 filed on 08/05/2021 (US Patent 11806406) which is a CON of 16/778,361 filed on 01/31/2020 (US Patent 11110181) which is a CON of 16/143,147 filed on 09/26/2018 (US Patent 10588984) which is a CON of 15/023,169 filed on 03/18/2016 (US Patent 10117947) which is a 371 of PCT/US2014/056412 filed on 09/18/2014 which claims US Priority benefit of US Provisional 61/879,627 filed on 09/18/2013.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/879,627, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, the ‘627 provisional does not support/recite the term nanoparticle. Thus, present claims do not receive an effective filing date to US Provisional 61/879,627 filed on 09/18/2013. Please note that presently applied prior art rejections are prior to the 09/18/2013 date. Applicant is invited to explain how the ‘627 application is supported.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 85 and 96 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.
This is a NEW MATTER rejection.
The subject matter of claims 85 and 96 regarding administering comprises injecting the viral-like nanoparticle into a bladder tumor of the subject, is not supported by the specification as originally filed. The specification and original claims do not disclose injecting into a bladder tumor. The specification supports injecting into the subject. Also, the specification supports targeting a bladder tumor but is silent regarding injecting into a bladder tumor. The specification does not provide sufficient blazemarks nor direction for the instant methods encompassed by the above-mentioned limitations, as currently recited. The instant claims now recite limitations, which were not clearly disclosed in the specification as filed, and now change the scope of the instant disclosure as filed. Such limitations recited in the present claims, which did not appear in the specification as filed, introduce new concepts and violate the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 86 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 86 recites the limitation "wherein the exposing of the viral-like nanoparticle to an infrared laser" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 86 depends from independent claim 84 which does not recite an infrared laser.
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.
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.
Currently, this application 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.
Claims 84, 86-95, and 97-99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coursaget et al (US 2012/0171290 published July 5, 2012, in view of Roberts et al (US2010/0135902,published 06/03/2010), in view of Green et al (US2005/0013778 published 01/20/2005), in further view of Kobayashi et al (US2012/0010558 published 01/12/2012).
Regarding base claims 84 and 95, Coursaget et al discloses a method comprising administering modified HPV particles for delivering therapeutic agents to a tumor of a subject. The viral-like particles read on nanoparticles (see para 0014). The viral-like nanoparticles comprise HPV capsid proteins. The viral-like nanoparticles may be used to deliver other types of therapeutic or medical agents, such as small molecules with anti-cancer activity (See para 0010, 0012, 0016.) Coursaget et al disclose that the modified HPV nanoparticles, comprising one or more therapeutic agents may be administered systemically to the treatment of tumors, including bladder cancer. See para 0160.
Regarding claims 87 and 95, Coursaget et al discloses the HPV capsid proteins comprise HPV L1 capsid proteins. (See para 0012.)
Regarding claim 88, 90, and 98, Coursaget et al discloses the HPV L1 capsid proteins comprise variant HPV16/31 L1 proteins. (See para Example 3 “Generation of HPV 16/31 L1 Mutants”; para 0024, 0062.)
Regarding claims 89 and 99, Coursaget et al discloses the HPV capsid proteins further comprise HPV L2 capsid proteins. (See para 0012.)
However, Coursaget et al differs from the present claims because they do not teach that the other type of therapeutic or medical agent is a photosensitizer molecules conjugated to the capsid proteins and further the step of exposing the viral-like nanoparticle conjugated to such photosensitizer molecules to a wavelength of light that activates cytotoxicity of the photosensitizer molecules.
Roberts et al disclose conjugating fluorescent dyes to tumor-targeting virus-like particles. The particles comprise HPV LI capsid proteins alone or in combination with L2 capsid protein. (See para 0006, 0007, 0011, 0013, 0050, 0055, 0057, 0059, 0061, 0068, 0069, 0075-0076).
Green et al disclose that photodynamic therapy (PDT) may be used to target tumors, including tumors of the bladder. (See para 0020). Green et al disclose that PDT works by exposing a targeting molecule linked to a photosensitizing molecule using appropriate light exposure, specifically to specific wavelengths of light in the presence of oxygen, results in killing of targeted cells including cancer cells. (See para 0020.) Green et al disclose that the near infrared range is 700-1500 nm.
Kobayashi et al disclose use of photosensitizing antibody-fluorophore conjugates for killing tumor cells in vivo. Specifically, the tumor-targeting antibody is conjugated to an IR700 molecule. The targeted cell is then exposed to an appropriate wavelength to activate the IR700 molecule thereby killing the tumor cell. (See para 0131-0134). The wavelength used is 660 to 740 nm. (See Abstract; para 0092, 0131-0134.) Kobayashi et al disclose the tumor cell to be killed includes bladder carcinoma. (See para 0110). Kobayashi et al recite:
[0092] When IR700 was conjugated with an anti-EGFR antibody (HER1 or HER2) or a PSMA antibody, cells that selectively bound the conjugate were killed upon exposure to 680 nm near-infrared (NIR) light. Based on this novel observation patient therapies are provided. Since this antibody-dependent target-cell specific photodynamic therapy is achieved with NIR light (e.g., 680 nm) excitation and showed highly selectively cytotoxic effects only upon antibody binding, this new antibody-dependent target-cell specific photodynamic therapy using IR700 can be used in cancer patients as a way to personalize cancer therapy with minimal side effects.
Regarding claims 91, 93, and 95, Kobayashi et al discloses the photosensitizer molecules comprise the infrared dye molecules IR700.
Regarding claims 86, 92 and 94, and 95, Kobayashi et al discloses the wavelength of light is 680 nm which meets the limitations of 600 nm to 800 nm or 680 nm to 800 nm.
Regarding claims 86, and 97, Kobayashi et al discloses the exposing affinity-IR700 conjugate to the the 680 nm to 800 nm wavelength of light and suggest such occurs about 30 minutes to about 48 hours after the administering of the conjugate to the tumor of the subject. (See para 0131-0134.) While Kobayashi et al recite exposing the photosensitizer molecules to laser light for activation, they do not explicitly disclose exposing for about 30 minutes to about 48 hours. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05. As evidenced by Kobayashi et al the claimed limitation of exposing for about 30 minutes to about 48 hours is considered optimization through routine experimentation, and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See Kobayashi et al para 0131-0134). A prima facie case of obviousness based on optimization may only be rebutted by evidence showing that the claimed range is critical, generally by proof that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
The level of skill in the art was high before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a photesensitizer dye molecule, especially to include IR700 dye molecules conjugated to the targeting nanoparticle, including a step of exposing/activating such IR700 dye molecules for the rationale of killing the targeted bladder tumor cells in the subject.
It would have been obvious to do such in view of the cited references because the references are in the same field of targeting tumor cells in a subject, including bladder tumor cells, for killing such cells. Coursaget et al disclose the viral-nanoparticles comprising HPV L1 capsid proteins for delivery of a therapeutic agent to tumor cells. Roberts et al disclose conjugating fluorescent dyes to tumor-targeting virus-like particles comprising HPV LI capsid proteins. Green et al and Kobayashi et al disclose using photodynamic therapy (PTD) to kill tumor cells. Kobayashi et al disclose IR700 dye molecules conjugated to the targeting nanoparticle, including a step of exposing/activating such IR700 dye molecules for the rationale of killing the targeted tumor cells in the subject.
In view of the high skill level in the art it is considered that one of ordinary skill in the art having the cited references before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success to conjugate the IR700 molecules of Kobayachi et al to the viral-like particles of Coursaget et al using attachment methods of Roberts et al and Green et al and then exposing/activating such IR700 dye molecules to a wavelength of 680 nm to 800 nm wavelength of light for about 30 minutes to about 48 hours after the administering of the conjugate to the tumor of the subject to arrive at the presently 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) 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 84, 86-95, and 97-99 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,117,947 in view of Kobayashi et al (US2012/0010558 published 01/12/2012). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of patented claims and Kobayashi et al renders obvious the instant claims.
Regarding instant base claims 84, and 95, patented claim 21 recites: a method comprising administering to a subject, having a tumor located in the bladder of the subject, a tumor-targeting papilloma virus-like particle comprising photosensitizer molecules being near infrared phthalocyanine dye molecules conjugated to papilloma virus capsid proteins, wherein the near infrared phthalocynanine dye molecules become toxic or product a toxic molecule upon light activation. Also, regarding instant claim 95, patented claim 3 recites HPV L1 capsid proteins and patented claim 16 recites the IR700 dye molecules as preferred species of photosensitizer molecules.
Regarding instant claims 87-90, and 98-99, patented claims 3-5 recite variant HPV L1 capsid proteins combined with wild-type HPV L2 capsid proteins.
Regarding instant claims 91, 93, and 95, patented claim 16 recites the dye comprises IR700 conjugated to capsid proteins.
However, patented claims differ from instant claims in that they do not explicitly recite the method step limitation of “exposing the viral-like nanoparticle to a wavelength of light that activates cytotoxicity of the photosensitizer molecules”. Specifically for claims 86, 92, 94, and 95, and 97, patented claims do not recite exposing to a 680 nm to 800 nm wavelength of light. Also, regarding claim 86 and 97, patented claims do not disclose the exposing of the viral-like nanoparticle to 680 nm to 800 nm wavelength of light/infrared laser at about 30 minutes to about 48 hours after the administering of the viral-like nanoparticle. However, patented claims explicitly recite IR700 dye molecules as a preferred species of cytotoxic photosensitizer molecules. It would have been prima facie obvious to include a step of exposing/activating such IR700 dye molecules for the rationale of killing the targeted bladder tumor cells in the subject.
Kobayashi et al disclose use of photosensitizing antibody-fluorophore conjugates for killing tumor cells in vivo. Specifically, the tumor-targeting antibody is conjugated to an IR700 molecule. The targeted cell is then exposed to an appropriate wavelength to activate the IR700 molecule thereby killing the tumor cell. (See para 0131-0134). The wavelength used is 660 to 740 nm. (See Abstract; para 0092, 0131-0134.) Kobayashi et al disclose the tumor cell to be killed includes bladder carcinoma. (See para 0110). Kobayashi et al recite:
[0092] When IR700 was conjugated with an anti-EGFR antibody (HER1 or HER2) or a PSMA antibody, cells that selectively bound the conjugate were killed upon exposure to 680 nm near-infrared (NIR) light. Based on this novel observation patient therapies are provided. Since this antibody-dependent target-cell specific photodynamic therapy is achieved with NIR light (e.g., 680 nm) excitation and showed highly selectively cytotoxic effects only upon antibody binding, this new antibody-dependent target-cell specific photodynamic therapy using IR700 can be used in cancer patients as a way to personalize cancer therapy with minimal side effects.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine all operable and optimal wavelengths for the light used to activate the IR700 dye molecules because the claims are drawn to wavelength is an art-recognized result-effective variable which is routinely determined and optimized in the photosensitizer arts as evidenced by Regarding instant claim 86, while patented claims recite exposing the photosensitizer molecules to laser light for activation, they do not explicitly disclose exposing for about 30 minutes to about 48 hours. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05. As evidenced by Kobayashi et al the claimed limitation of exposing for about 30 minutes to about 48 hours is considered optimization through routine experimentation, and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See Kobayashi et al para 0131-0134). A prima facie case of obviousness based on optimization may only be rebutted by evidence showing that the claimed range is critical, generally by proof that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 84, 86-95, and 97-99 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,806,406 B2 in view of Coursaget et al (US 2012/0171290 published July 5, 2012. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of patented claims anticipate or render obvious the instant claims.
Regarding instant base claims 84, 87, 91-95, patented claim 12 recites: administering to a tumor of a subject a viral-like nanoparticle that comprises human papilloma virus (HPV) L1 capsid proteins and photosensitizer molecules, wherein the photosensitizer molecules are conjugated to capsid proteins of the viral-like nanoparticle, specifically IR700 dye molecules, and exposing the viral-like nanoparticle to a wavelength of light that activates cytotoxicity of the photosensitizer molecules, specifically to 680 nm to 80 nm wavelength of light.
Regarding instant claims 86, and 97, patented claim 14 recites exposing the viral-like nanoparticle to the 680 nm to 800 nm wavelength of light about 30 minutes to about 48 hours after administering the particles to the subject.
Regarding instant claims 88, 90, and 98, patented claim 19 recites variant HPV 16/31 L1 capsid proteins.
Regarding instant claims 89 and 99, patented claim 20 recites HPV L2 capsid proteins.
However, instant claims differ from patented claims because instant claims recite the tumor is located in the bladder whereas patented claims recite the tumor is ocular.
Coursaget et al discloses a method comprising administering modified HPV particles for delivering therapeutic agents to a tumor of a subject. The viral-like particles read on nanoparticles (see para 0014). The viral-like nanoparticles comprise HPV capsid proteins. The viral-like nanoparticles may be used to deliver other types of therapeutic or medical agents, such as small molecules with anti-cancer activity (See para 0010, 0012, 0016.) Coursaget et al disclose that the modified HPV nanoparticles, comprising one or more therapeutic agents may be administered systemically to the treatment of tumors, including bladder cancer. See para 0160.
The level of skill in the art was high before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the therapeutic nanoparticle system of the patented claims to administer to a bladder tumor in the subject for the rationale of treating a bladder tumor in the subject. It would have been obvious to do such in view of Coursaget et al discloses administering such therapeutic nanoparticles to a subject to treat bladder tumors. In view of the high skill in the art it is considered that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to combine the elements of the patented claims with Coursaget et al to arrive at the presently claimed invention.
Claims 84-87, 89, and 91 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,589,165 B2 as evidenced by Kobayashi et al (US2012/0010558 published 01/12/2012). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of patented claims anticipate or render obvious the instant claims.
Regarding instant claims 84-85, patented claim 1 recites: administering to a bladder tumor of a subject a viral-like nanoparticle that comprises human papilloma virus (HPV) capsid proteins and photosensitizer molecules, wherein the photosensitizer molecules are conjugated to capsid proteins of the viral-like nanoparticle, and wherein the tumor is located in the bladder of the subject; and exposing the viral-like nanoparticle to a wavelength of light that activates cytotoxicity of the photosensitizer molecules.
Regarding instant claims 87, patented claim 2 recites HPV L1 capsid proteins
Regarding instant claims 89, patented claims 3 and 16 recite HPV L2 capsid proteins.
Regarding instant claim 91, patented claim recites infrared dye molecules.
However, regarding instant claim 86, while patented claims recite exposing the photosensitizer molecules to laser light for activation, they do not explicitly disclose exposing for about 30 minutes to about 48 hours. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05. As evidenced by Kobayashi et al the claimed limitation of exposing for about 30 minutes to about 48 hours is considered optimization through routine experimentation, and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See Kobayashi et al para 0131-0134). A prima facie case of obviousness based on optimization may only be rebutted by evidence showing that the claimed range is critical, generally by proof that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Related art:
Pierre et al (WO-2010120266). Pierre et al teach creating HPV L1 and L2 based nanospheres and the use of such nanospheres in the delivery of anti-cancer agents in vivo in order to target therapy against cancers. For example, bladder cancer can be targeted with the modified HPV particles and carcinoma. (See pages 6, 31, 32, 35, 38 and 39.) These cancers can be tumors of premalignant, malignant or metastatic; is a non-mucosal, solid tumor or contains cancer stem cells; is a carcinoma and is located in the bladder. Pierre et al teach chimeric capsid proteins can be used. (See pages 4 and 7.) Pierre et al teach that peptides can be attached to the capsid proteins by linkers, such as BS(PEG)9. (See page 23.)
US2013/0116408 to de Los Pinos et al (published May 09, 2013) is not prior art under 102(a)(1) because it qualifies for a 102(b)(1)(A) exception.
WO-2013119877 to de Los Pinos et al (published August 15, 2013). WO-2013-119877 is not prior art under 102(a)(1) because it qualifies for a 102(b)(1)(A) exception.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE S HIBBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3053. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, 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.
CATHERINE S. HIBBERT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1658
/CATHERINE S HIBBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights