DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of International Application No. PCT/US2022/041565, filed 08/25/2022, which claims the priority benefit of PRO Application No. 63/237,928, filed 08/27/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and a species election of benzyl isothiocyanate (BITC) in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-8 and 51-53 are pending. Claims 9-50 and 54-56 have been cancelled by applicant without prejudice or disclaimer. Claims 51-53 have been withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-8 are examined herein insofar as they read on the elected invention and species.
Specification
The lengthy specification (52 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink (pg. 52, line 14) and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 45, lines 11-12 recites "high-throughout" rather than "high-throughput" when referring to the method of screening with MTT and Abeta uptake assays. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because information on the X and Y axis in bar graphs of figures 1 and 2 are not all legible and require labeling with better resolution for clarity of the record. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the abbreviations AD and MCI are missing at the first instance that they appear in the claims from the definitions found from the specification for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to promote clarity of the record. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the abbreviation PEITC, are missing at the first instance that they appear in the claims from the definitions found from the specification for phenyl isothiocyanate (PEITC). 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.
Claim 8 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.
In Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane), the Federal Circuit noted the importance of an application's disclosure and stated, "the hallmark of written description is disclosure." A disclosure adequately describes an invention when it "reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Id. at 1351. "A 'mere wish or plan' for obtaining the claimed invention is not adequate written description." CentocorOrtho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 636 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011 ).
What is required to meet the written description requirement "varies with the nature and scope of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Federal Circuit explained what is required to meet the written description requirement in Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.:
This inquiry, as we have long held, is a question of fact. Ralston Purina, 772 F.2d at 575. Thus, we have recognized that determining whether a patent complies with the written description requirement will necessarily vary depending on the context. Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Specifically, the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Id. For generic claims, we have set forth a number of factors for evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure, including "the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue." Id. at 1359.
A written description of a chemical genus "requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name" of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 199 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Federal Circuit reflected on Eli Lilly in Ariad while explaining how to sufficiently describe of a genus of compounds:
We held that a sufficient description of a genus instead 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. Id. at 1568-69. We explained that an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials. Id. at 1568 (quoting Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). We have also held that functional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function. See Enzo, 323 F.3d at 964 (quoting 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001)). But merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.
A "representative number of species" must typify the entire claimed genus and
account for variation between the species of the genus.
[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated. Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The present limitations of instant claim 8 encompass any compound comprising “any chemical moiety related to watercress and/or other cruciferous plant extraction”.
By contrast, the specification supports no compounds within this genus while only providing the definition of cruciferous plants found as “In some embodiments, a PEITC analog is any chemical moiety related to watercress and/or other cruciferous plant extraction and the structures related to PEITC” (Specification, pg. 32, lines 5-6) and repeated in pg. 33 and 39, lines 20-21, pg. 34 and 40, lines 16-17, and pg. 38, lines 24-25. The lack of even a few species cannot possibly typify the entire genus claimed or account for all of the variation between species of such a genus. For example, while the genus of " any chemical moiety related to watercress and/or other cruciferous plant extraction " encompasses any compound with a chemical moiety related to watercress and/or other cruciferous plant extraction, the no supporting species are provided by the application which are drawn to any chemical moiety related to watercress and/or other cruciferous plant extraction. Support for the entirety of the claimed genus cannot be extrapolated from no species. For example, Morales-Lopez et al., (Evaluation of antioxidant and hepatoprotective effects of white cabbage essential oil) teach “There have been no reports of the extraction of essential oil (EO) from white cabbage [Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. f. alba DC. Brassicaceae)] (Bocfal) or its chemical composition, antioxidant activity, or hepatoprotective effects.” (Abstract) Morales-Lopez also teaches “The research on the aromas from cruciferous vegetables (i.e., cabbages and related vegetables, Brassica oleracea Linn. spp.) and, in consequence, their bioactive compounds, represents a real challenge because of the scarce yields of these aroma compounds, which have been described to contain isothiocyanates (ITCs) and organic polysulphides (OPSs) as major components (Stoewsand 1995).” (Introduction, pg. 233, right col. 2nd para.) Finally, Morales-Lopez discloses extraction yields on Table 1, pg. 236 from B. oleracea (reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A skilled artisan facing a large variety of Organopolysulphanes (OPS), Isothiocyanates and indoles, Nitriles, Alcohols, Aldehydes, and Miscellaneous compounds from just a single species of cruciferous plant (white cabbage) as taught by Morales-Lopez, would not be able to ascertain which chemical moiety related to watercress and/or other cruciferous plant extraction applicant intends from the limitations of instant specification or by the claims which illustrates the exceedingly broad scope of the instant claims.
Chemistry and biotechnology are generally considered to be unpredictable and/or have unpredictable factors. See, e.g., In re Carleton, 599 F.2d 1021, 202 USPQ 165, 170 (CCPA 1979) ("Although there is a vast amount of knowledge about general relationships in the chemical arts, chemistry is still largely empirical, and there is often great difficulty in predicting precisely how a given compound will behave."). The pharmaceutical art, that is the use of a chemical compound to affect a desired physiological activity, is generally considered to be unpredictable and/or have unpredictable factors. See, e.g., In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (CCPA 1970) ("In
cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, the scope of enablement obviously varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved (emphasis added); In re Bowden, 183 F.2d 115, 86 USPQ 419, 423 ("chemical reactions frequently are unpredictable").
Considering the unpredictability found in chemistry and biotechnology.
Accordingly, when a claim presents a genus with substantial variation as that currently presented by Applicant, the disclosure must adequately reflect such variation with a representative number of species. The lack of any disclosure of examples may be considered in determining whether a claimed invention was adequately described. Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 647 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
A few species is not a "representative number of species" for unpredictable arts such as chemistry and biotechnology. See, e.g., Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1354-55 (claiming that the inventor has an obligation to disclose examples when the art is unpredictable).
The specification, then, is considered devoid of sufficiently detailed, relevant, identifying
characteristics demonstrating that Applicant was in possession of the entirety of the genus now claimed, i.e., additional complete or partial structures, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination thereof demonstrating possession of the entirety of the claimed genus.
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 6-8 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 6, the phrase "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 6 is indefinite because they make express reference to the specification. Claim 6 recites “chemical moieties (e.g., small molecules) shown in Table 1” which are not present in the claims. According to MPEP 2173.05(s) “Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).”
Regarding claims 7-8, the term “analog” in “analog of PEITC,” claim 7, line 3 and dependent claim 8, line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “analog” 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.
The specification defines a PEITC analog as, “In some embodiments, a PEITC analog is any chemical moiety related to watercress and/or other cruciferous plant extraction and the structures related to PEITC.” (Pg. 32, lines 5-6). No Further attempts are made to narrow an entire class of compounds besides the specific structures identified in instant claim 8 which compounds the indefiniteness by including the limitation “any chemical moiety related to watercress and/or other cruciferous plant extraction” identified by the 112a rejection above.
Another factor further aggravating indefiniteness of the term “analog” is found in the specification Example II on pg. 44 which discloses the synthesis of PEITC analogs in scheme 1, “This example describes the synthesis of PEITC analogs (see scheme 1).” Wherein examiner notes prophetic statements in the specification regarding additional experimentation needed, “Additional experiments will be conducted with these PEITC analogs using high throughout screening with MTT and Abeta uptake assays to assess the therapeutic efficacy of such PEITC analogs in the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders as described herein.” (sic) (Specification, pg. 45, lines 10-15). This is clearly a prophetic example, none of the assays have been carried out. Should any of these analogs prove to lack therapeutic activity, it draws into question whether such compounds are considered PEITC analogs in context of the claimed methods wherein one or more agents capable of protecting neurons from cell death and unregulated microglia phagocytic activity. See MPEP 2164.02 IV.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Dependent claim 2 is directed to “The method of claim 1, wherein the composition is capable of protecting neurons from cell death and unregulated microglia phagocytic activity”, which merely repeats the limitation of independent claim 1 wherein the composition is “capable of protecting neurons from cell death and unregulated microglia phagocytic activity” and therefore fails to further limit the scope of the claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (US 2012/0309808 A1) in view of Schepici et al. pg. 1-26 (Efficacy of Sulforaphane in Neurodegenerative Diseases).
The instant claims are directed to a method of treating a mammal suffering from a neurodegenerative disorder (Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, motor neuron disease, subjective memory complaints, and mild cognitive impairment (MCI)) comprising administering to the mammal a composition comprising one or more agents capable of protecting neurons from cell death and unregulated microglia phagocytic activity (PEITC, an analog of PEITC, NADH, and NAD+).
Kong et al. teach cruciferous vegetables including include broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage and cauliflower contain abundant phytochemicals and that the cruciferous vegetables and are rich in glucosinolates that can endogenously be converted into compounds including isothiocyanates (ITCs) of phenethyl isothiocyanate (PEITC) and sulforaphane (SFN)) [0012]. Kong teaches a method of inducing expression of anti-oxidative stress wherein in one embodiment, the subject has a disease or disorder characterized by decreased expression of anti-oxidative stress enzymes including Alzheimer’s [0016]. Kong also discloses a “subject in need thereof is understood to include any human or animal subjects who have been diagnosed with a disorder including Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease [0041].
However, Kong et al. fail to explicitly disclose a compound capable of protecting neurons from cell death and unregulated microglia phagocytic activity.
Schepici et al. teach sulforaphane (SFN) showed efficacy in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer’s and is a phytocompound belonging to the isothiocyanate family mainly present in sprouts of many cruciferous vegetables, including cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts (Abstract). Schepici teaches SFN (0.01–1 μM) pretreatment for 24 hours protected neurons by cell death 5-S-Cysteinyl-dopamine-induced. Schepici also teaches that SFN can improve the microglial phagocytosis, reduced due to beta-amyloid Aβ aggregates (pg. 7, 3rd para.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to administer a method of treating the neurodegenerative disease of Alzheimer’s by administering the phenyl isothiocyanate (PEITC) compound of sulforaphane (SFN) to a human patient in need thereof because Kong disclosed a method of inducing expression of anti-oxidative stress in a patient with Alzheimer’s by administering SFN and would have looked towards Schepici who elucidated that the efficacy of SFN in treating Alzheimer’s is due to improving the microglial phagocytosis.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to administer SFN treating Alzheimer’s at the point of diagnosis which would routinely include early and late stages of Alzheimer’s disease progression and therefore would have looked to Kong’s disclosure of SFN’s efficacy in treating Alzheimer’s and in the interest of protecting as many neurons as possible used Schepici’s teaching by administering the compound of SFN at the earliest opportunity in a patient including at the prodromal stage of Alzheimer’s with the expectation of success in improving patient outcomes. See MPEP 2144.05 II and MPEP 2112.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7-8, 31, and 36-37 of copending Application No. 18/113,981 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected claims and conflict reference claims 1, 3, 7-8, 31, and 36-37 are all directed to methods to treat Alzheimer’s disease (AD) with a compound such as PEITC, NAD+, NADH and PEITC analogs, within the scope claimed.
Conflict claims 7 and 36 claim a method of treating a human patient, suffering from AD (neurodegenerative disorder) with a composition to protect neurons from cell death, etc., with PEITC, PEITC analogs, NAD+ and NADH. See conflict application claims 7 and 36 specifying some of the same PEITC analogs as claimed by instant claims 1-8.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected, no claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO VALLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5356. The examiner can normally be reached 0730-1700 M-F EST, 1st Friday off.
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, Adam C Milligan can be reached at 571-270-7674. 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.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1623
/SAMANTHA L SHTERENGARTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623
Prosecution Insights