DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-20, 24-25 are currently pending. Claims 9, 16, 21-23 and 26 are cancelled.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, 10-15 and 17 in the reply filed on 6/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 and 24-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/18/2026.
Priority
This application claims benefit as a CON of PCT/US2022/045476, filed October 1, 2022, which claims the benefit of provisional application No. 63/251,464, filed October 1, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/29/2024 and 8/7/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical.
The specification recites the phrase “Lagerhans cell histiocytosis” ([0014]. It appears the word “Lagerhans” should be spelled “Langerhans”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical.
Claim 1 recites the following:
A method of reducing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) rejection in a subject having undergone, undergoing, or scheduled to undergo an allo-HCT comprising, administering to the subject a composition containing at least one Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor to a subject and improving donor cell engraftment while reducing or eliminating the need for at least one of cytotoxic chemotherapy and irradiation of the subject.
It appears the phrase “administering to the subject a composition containing at least one Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor to a subject and improving donor cell engraftment” should read as follows:
“…administering to the subject a composition containing at least one Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor and improving donor cell engraftment…”
Regarding claim 3, it appears the phrase “…wherein the composition comprising the at least one JAK inhibitor comprises administering at least one of….” , should reads as follows:
“…wherein the composition comprising the at least one JAK inhibitor is administered at least one of….”
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: abbreviations.
Claim 13 recites the abbreviations “ALL”, “AML”, “MDS”, and “CML”. It is noted the abbreviations should first be spelled out upon first usage in a claim.
Further regarding claim 13, it appears the word “Lagerhans” should be spelled “Langerhans”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-5, 7-8, 10-15 and 17 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.
Claim 1 requires a method of reducing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) rejection in a subject having undergone, undergoing, or scheduled to undergo an allo-HCT comprising, administering to the subject a composition containing at least one Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor to a subject and improving donor cell engraftment while reducing or eliminating the need for at least one of cytotoxic chemotherapy and irradiation of the subject.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-15 and 17 incorporate the method of claim 1.
Claim 1 as currently written encompasses administering to the subject any amount of the recited JAK inhibitor, e.g., 0.0000001 mg/kg.
A review of the specification shows that Applicants have not provided sufficient description of the invention to support they were in possession of administering any amount of the JAK inhibitor for reducing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation rejection.
In the instant case the specification recites amounts of JAK inhibitor ranging from 0.05 mg/kg to 300 mg/kg ([0009]-[0010], [0070]-[0071]), and exemplifies amounts of 90 mg/kg, 180 mg/kg and 270 mg/kg for bone marrow transplant models ([0082] and [0084]) that reduce allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation rejection.
A review of the specification shows that Applicants have not provided sufficient description of the invention to support they were in possession of administering any amount of the JAK inhibitor for reducing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation rejection.
Claims 1 and 11 further recite “reducing or eliminating the need for at least one of cytotoxic chemotherapy and irradiation of the subject” (claim 1) and “eliminating chemotherapeutic treatments of the subject” (claim 11). However, a review of the specification shows that Applicants have not provided sufficient description of the invention to support they were in possession of said claim scope. In the instant case Applicant’s experimental data does not demonstrate that the mouse models were receiving any type of therapeutic cytotoxic chemotherapy or irradiation that was reduced or eliminated upon undergoing the allo-HCT in combination with administering the JAK inhibitor.
In the instant case the specification exemplifies mouse models of human allogeneic bone marrow transplant, wherein the mice were subjected to total body irradiation (TBI) or reduced TBI (RIC) and thereafter received bone marrow transplant (BMT) from donor mice. The experimental group received the JAK inhibitor ([0079]-[0085]) and demonstrated donor cell engraftment.
Further regarding claim 13, a review of the specification shows that Applicants have not provided sufficient description of the invention to support they were in possession of reducing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation rejection in a subject that has, or is suspected of developing the scope of non-malignant and malignant conditions recited in claim 13, e.g., any metabolic disorder (Gaucher's Disease or Maple Syrup Urine Disease), Langerhans cell histiocytosis, Fanconi syndrome (kidney disorder), Aspartylglucosaminuria (lysosome storage disease).
In the instant case the specification exemplifies mouse models of human allogeneic bone marrow transplant, wherein the mice were subjected to total body irradiation (TBI) or reduced TBI (RIC) and thereafter received bone marrow transplant (BMT) from donor mice. The experimental group received the JAK inhibitor ([0079]-[0085]) and demonstrated donor cell engraftment. However, there is no indication that the mouse models are indicative of the scope of claimed conditions.
Accordingly, the claims are considered to lack sufficient written description and are properly rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph.
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 1-8, 10-15 and 17 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 1, it is noted that claim 1 recites the phrase “…improving donor cell engraftment…” The term “improving” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improving” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is unclear if “improving” is related to side effects resulting from allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant, or the improvement is related to longevity of cell survival after transplant. It is unclear if “improving” is related to reducing the need for additional immunosuppression.
Given the specification does not define what is meant by “improving” donor cell engraftment, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of the term.
Claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17 inherit the deficiency of claim 1, and thus are rejected on the same basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear if the claim means the chemotherapeutic treatments are eliminated prior to or after, or both before and after, administering the JAK inhibitor.
Regarding claims 13-15, it is noted that claim 13 recites the limitation “…the non-malignant or malignant condition…”, claim 14 recites the limitation "the solid organ transplant" and claim 15 recites the limitation “the non-organ cellular transplant”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims since claim 1, from which claims 13-15 depend, does not recite “a non-malignant or malignant condition”, or “a solid organ transplant”, or “a non-organ cellular transplant”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al., (JAMA Network Open, 2021 Vol. 4, No. 1, 12 pages; see PTO-892) (“Wu”).
Wu is directed to methods of evaluating ruxolitinib (i.e., JAK 1/2 inhibitor) for steroid-refractory chronic graft-vs-host disease (SR-cGVHD) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) (Abstract: Importance and Objectives). Wu teaches ruxolitinib has shown a significant response in steroid-refractory chronic graft-vs-host disease (SR-cGVHD), which is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals who have undergone allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches treating 41 patients with ruxolitinib, wherein a total of 15 patients (36.6%) had a complete remission (i.e., improving donor cell engraftment), and 14 (34.1%) had a partial remission (i.e., improving donor cell engraftment), with an overall response rate of 70.7% (Abstract: Findings).
Wu specifically teaches the enrolled patients were aged 10 years or older and received ruxolitinib orally, wherein patients weighing 60 kg or less received a 5 mg dose twice daily and patients weighing more than 60 kg received 10 mg dose twice daily (Methods, page 2). Treated patients included those suffering from acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (Results, Patients, page 3).
Therefore, Wu teaches reducing SR-cGVHD in patients having undergone allo-HSCT (i.e., reducing allo-HSCT rejection) by administering the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib, wherein a total of 15 patients (36.6%) had a complete remission (i.e., improving donor cell engraftment), and 14 (34.1%) had a partial remission (i.e., improving donor cell engraftment).
Further regarding the limitation “reducing or eliminating the need for at least one of cytotoxic chemotherapy and irradiation of the subject”, it is noted that Wu does not further comment on whether or not the treatment method reduced or eliminated the need for at least one of cytotoxic chemotherapy and irradiation of the subject. However, although Wu does not state the treatment method reduced or eliminated the need for at least one of cytotoxic chemotherapy and irradiation of the subject, the fact that Wu employs the same JAK inhibitor as the instant application ([0082], [0084]), and at doses within the disclosed ranges ([0010], [0038], [0070]) means that any and all results of the method of Wu, whether recognized at the time of publication or not, were inherently achieved by the reference method. MPEP 2112.01
Thus, Wu’s disclosed method anticipates claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Wu teaches the treated subjects have a malignant condition, i.e., ALL and AML, thus anticipating claim 2.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Wu teaches administering the JAK inhibitor after the allo-HSCT (Abstract; Design, Setting and Participants), thus anticipating claims 3 and 5.
Regarding claim 6, Wu teaches patients weighing 60 kg or less (e.g. 20-60 kg) received a 5 mg dose twice daily (5 mg/60 kg or less correlates to 0.083 mg/kg) and patients weighing more than 60 kg (e.g., 60-100 kg) received a 10 mg dose twice daily (10 mg/100 kg correlates to 0.1 mg/kg) (Methods, page 2). It is noted the ranges disclosed by Wu are disclosed with sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation. See MPEP 2131.03 (II).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Wu teaches the JAK inhibitor is ruxolitinib, i.e., a JAK 1/2 inhibitor (Abstract: Objectives), thus anticipating claims 7 and 8.
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches human subjects (Abstract: Findings), thus anticipating claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, Wu teaches the patients are suffering from ALL and AML, thus anticipating claim 17.
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.
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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13 and 17 above, and further in view of Stubig et al., (Leukemia (2014) 28, 1736-1764; see PTO-892) (“Stubig”).
The teaching of Wu is set forth above and anticipates claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13 and 17.
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that Wu does not further teach administering the JAK inhibitor to the subject about 1 month before providing the allo-HCT. However, Stubig teaches of JAK inhibition with ruxolitinib as a pretreatment for allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT). Stubig teaches the time from start of ruxolitinib to ASCT ranged from 27 to 324 days (claimed range overlaps the prior art range) (page 1736, left col, 6th para). Thus, Stubig has established it was known to conduct JAK inhibition about a month prior to allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conduct pretreatment of patients with JAK inhibition about a month prior to allogeneic stem cell transplant.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Wu to further include JAK inhibition before allo-HSCT, as taught by Stubig, for the predictable result of managing spleen size since spleen size has a significant impact on stem cell engraftment and graft function (page 1736, left col, 5th para), thus meeting the limitation of claim 4.
The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wu and Stubig because each of these teachings are directed at therapeutic uses of JAK inhibitors for allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13 and 17 above, and further in view of Wong et al., (International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, Vol. 101, No. 3, pp. 521e529, 2018; see PTO-892) (“Wong”).
The teaching of Wu is set forth above and anticipates claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13 and 17.
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that Wu does not further comment on the total body radiation parameters for the ALL and AML patients that received the allo-HSCT.
However, Wong teaches of the total body irradiation guidelines from the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG), specifically for patients with ALL and AML and undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) (Consensus Statements, page 521, left col). Wong teaches the most common TBI schedules with myeloablative conditioning include twice daily 2-Gy fractions given over 3 days (total dose 12 Gy); twice-daily 1.5-Gy fractions over 4-4.5 days (total dose 12-13.5 Gy); three-times-daily 1.2-Gy fractions over 4 days (total dose 12-13.2 Gy); and once-daily 3-Gy fractions for 4 days (total dose 12 Gy) (page 522, left col, first para). Wong teaches nonmyeloablative and reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with lower chemotherapy or TBI doses have been developed to allow such patients to undergo allogeneic HCT, and doses are usually 8 Gy if the RT is fractionated, 5 Gy in a single fraction for reduced-intensity regimens, and less than or equal to 2 Gy for nonmyeoablative regimens (page 522, right col, second para).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conduct total body irradiation at total doses ranging from 2 Gy to 13.5 Gy (claimed range overlaps the prior art range).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Wu to further include total body irradiation before allo-HSCT at commonly used levels , as taught by Wong, for the predictable result of effective preparation and conditioning before allogeneic stem cell transplant, thus meeting the limitation of claim 10.
The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wu and Wong because each of these teachings are directed at allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13 and 17 above, and further in view of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Stem cell transplant without radiation or chemotherapy pre-treatment shows promise, December 7, 2014, 5 pages, retrieved from the internet; see PTO-892) (“Dana-Farber”).
The teaching of Wu is set forth above and anticipates claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13 and 17.
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that Wu does not further teach elimination of chemotherapeutic treatments in conjunction with the JAK inhibitor immunosuppression. However, Dana-Farber teaches of successfully conducting hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) after pre-treatment with immunosuppressive drugs only, without the use of any radiation or conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy beforehand (page 1). Dana-Farber teaches the conventional transplant conditioning employs radiation and/or high-dose cytotoxic drugs to destroy the bone marrow and blood and immune cells; however, it also causes widespread cellular damage throughout the body. Thus, Dana-Farber teaches a less toxic approach could effectively condition patients for transplant (page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conduct conditioning prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) with immunosuppressive drugs only, without the use of any radiation or conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy beforehand.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Wu to further include total body irradiation before allo-HSCT at commonly used levels, as taught by Dana-Farber, for the predictable result of reducing widespread cellular damage, thus meeting the limitation of claim 11.
The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wu and Dana-Farber because each of these teachings are directed at stem cell transplantation.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13 and 17 above, and further in view of Betts et al., (US 2018/0318306; see PTO-892) (“Betts”).
The teaching of Wu is set forth above and anticipates claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13 and 17.
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that Wu does not further comment on the subjects having solid organ transplants.
However, Betts is directed to the use of JAK2 inhibitors of Formula I for treatment of solid organ transplant rejection and graft-versus host disease (GVHD) (Abstract).
Betts teaches the solid organ transplant is lung, liver, kidney, heart, pancreas, skin, stomach, or vascularized composite grafts, wherein the patient has received an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant and the JAK 2 inhibitor of Formula (I) is administered concurrently with a solid organ transplant, or is administered subsequent to a solid organ transplant. Betts teaches the JAK inhibitor prevents or reduces solid organ transplant rejection or GvHD after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). In some embodiments, the compound of Formula (I) is administered at a dosage of between about 0.1 mg/kg per day to about 1000 mg/kg per day ([0026].
Thus, Betts has established it was known to administer JAK inhibitors to subjects that have undergone solid organ transplants, wherein the patient has received an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to administer JAK inhibitors to subjects that have undergone solid organ transplants, wherein the patient has received an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the prior art method to further include administering JAK inhibitors to subjects that have undergone solid organ transplants, wherein the patient has received an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, as taught by Betts, for the predictable result of effectively treating a broader patient population suffering from GVHD, thus meeting the limitation of claim 14.
The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wu and Betts because each of these teachings are directed at therapeutic uses of JAK inhibitors wherein the patient has received an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13 and 17 above, and further in view of Kim et al., (ISLETS 2019, VOL. 11, NO. 5, 119–128; see PTO-892) (“Kim”).
The teaching of Wu is set forth above and anticipates claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13 and 17.
Regarding claim 15, it is noted that Wu does not further teach the non-organ cellular transplant comprises islet cell transplantation.
However, Kim is directed to JAK3 inhibitor-based immunosuppression in allogeneic islet transplantation. Kim teaches testing whether JAK3 inhibitor, tofacitinib could be used instead of tacrolimus in CIT07 immunosuppression regimen. Kim teaches cellular and humoral immune responses were efficiently suppressed by JAK3 inhibitor based immunosuppression (Abstract). Kim further teaches that significant attention has been paid to develop Janus kinase 3 (JAK3) inhibitor as a novel immunosuppressive drug in organ transplantation (page 120, left col, second para).
Thus, Kim has demonstrated that JAK inhibitors are effective at reducing immune response as a result of islet cell transplant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ JAK inhibitors in methods of reducing allogeneic stem cell transplant rejection in subjects having undergone islet cell transplant.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the prior art method for the predictable result of effectively treating a broader cell transplant population, thus meeting the limitation of claim 15.
The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wu and Kim because each of these teachings are directed at therapeutic uses of JAK inhibitors wherein the patient has received a cell transplant.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to E. YVONNE PYLA whose telephone number is (571)270-7366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 6pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER BABIC can be reached at 571-272-8507. 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.
E. YVONNE PYLA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1633
/EVELYN Y PYLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1633
Prosecution Insights