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 .
DETAIL ACTION
This office action is a response to a 371 application filed -----3/7/2024 which is a national stage application of PCT/CN2022/086053 filed 4/11/2022, which claims foreign priority to PCT/CN2021/117692 filed 9/10/2021.
As filed, claims 33, 35, 36, 38-40, 42-45, 47, 49, 50, 60, 63, 66, 71-73, 78, and 79 are pending, wherein claim 79 is new; and claims 1-32, 34, 37, 41, 46, 48, 51-59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67-70, and 74-77 are cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Regarding the election of species requirement, Applicant, without traverse, elected the species of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which is found in pg. 4, line 29 of the instant specification. The claims, which read on the elected species, are instant claims 33, 35, 36, 38-40, 42-45, 47, 49, 50, 60, 63, 66, and 71-73, according to Applicant’s reply filed on 8/19/2026.
Claims 78 and 79 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Examination will begin with the elected species. In accordance with the MPEP 803.02, if upon examination of the elected species, no prior art is found that would anticipate or render obvious the instant invention based on the elected species, the search of the Markush-type claim will be extended. If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the non-elected species, the Markush-type claim will be rejected. It should be noted that the prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all non-elected species. Should Applicant overcome the rejection by amending the claim, the amended claim will be reexamined. Id. The prior art search will be extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. Id. In the event prior art is found during reexamination that renders obvious or anticipates the amended Markush-type claim, the claim will be rejected and the action made final. Id.
As per MPEP 803.02, the Examiner will attempt to determine whether the entire scope of the claims is patentable. Applicants' elected species, as shown above, does not make a contribution over the prior art.
According to MPEP 803.02: should the elected species appear non-allowable, the search of the Markush-type claim will not be extended. The Markush-type claim shall be rejected and claims to the nonelected invention held withdrawn from further consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/1/2024; 2/5/2025; 9/30/2025; 10/8/2025; 12/19/2025; 3/19/2026; and 8/19/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The amendment filed 8/26/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “each of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety”.
MPEP 211.02 and MPEP 201.06(c)(IV) state the following in regard to “Incorporation by Reference” and PCT Rule 20.6, Rule 20.7 and Rule 4.18 are directed specifically to International applications:
MPEP 211.02, in-part
For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, a claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 for benefit of a prior-filed provisional application, nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States that was present on the filing date of the continuation or divisional application, or the nonprovisional application claiming benefit of a prior-filed provisional application, is considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to inadvertently omitted material, subject to the conditions and requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(b). The purpose of 37 CFR 1.57(b) is to provide a safeguard for applicants when all or a portion of the specification and/or drawing(s) is (are) inadvertently omitted from an application. See MPEP § 201.06 and 217. However, applicants are encouraged to provide in the specification an explicit incorporation by reference statement to the prior-filed application(s) for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 if applicants do not wish the incorporation by reference to be limited to inadvertently omitted material pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). See 37 CFR 1.57(c). See also MPEP §§ 217 and MPEP § 608.01(p).
MPEP 201.06(c)(IV), in-part
201.06(c) 37 CFR 1.53(b) and 37 CFR 1.63(d) Divisional-Continuation Procedure [R-07.2015]
IV. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
An applicant may incorporate by reference the prior application by including, in the continuing application-as-filed, an explicit statement that such specifically enumerated prior application or applications are “hereby incorporated by reference.” The statement must appear in the specification. See 37 CFR 1.57(c) and MPEP § 608.01(p). The inclusion of this incorporation by reference statement will permit an applicant to amend the continuing application to include subject matter from the prior application(s), without the need for a petition provided the continuing application is entitled to a filing date notwithstanding the incorporation by reference. For applications filed prior to September 21, 2004, the incorporation by reference statement may appear in the transmittal letter or in the specification. Note that for applications filed prior to September 21, 2004, if applicants used a former version of the transmittal letter form provided by the USPTO, the incorporation by reference statement could only be relied upon to add inadvertently omitted material to the continuation or divisional application.
An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a) ). If an incorporation by reference statement is included in an amendment to the specification to add a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 after the filing date of the application, the amendment would not be proper. When a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 is submitted after the filing of an application, the reference to the prior application cannot include an incorporation by reference statement of the prior application. See Dart Indus. v. Banner, 636 F.2d 684, 207 USPQ 273 (C.A.D.C. 1980).
20.6 Confirmation of Incorporation by Reference of Elements and Parts
(a) The applicant may submit to the receiving Office, within the applicable time limit under Rule 20.7, a written notice confirming that an element or part is incorporated by reference in the international application under Rule 4.18, accompanied by:
(i) a sheet or sheets embodying the entire element as contained in the earlier application or embodying the part concerned;
(ii) where the applicant has not already complied with Rule 17.1(a), (b) or (b-bis) in relation to the priority document, a copy of the earlier application as filed;
(iii) where the earlier application is not in the language in which the international application is filed, a translation of the earlier application into that language or, where a translation of the international application is required under Rule 12.3(a) or 12.4(a), a translation of the earlier application into both the language in which the international application is filed and the language of that translation; and
(iv) in the case of a part of the description, claims or drawings, an indication as to where that part is contained in the earlier application and, where applicable, in any translation referred to in item (iii).
(b) Where the receiving Office finds that the requirements of Rule 4.18 and paragraph (a) have been complied with and that the element or part referred to in paragraph (a) is completely contained in the earlier application concerned, that element or part shall be considered to have been contained in the purported international application on the date on which one or more elements referred to in Article 11(1)(iii) were first received by the receiving Office.
(c) Where the receiving Office finds that a requirement under Rule 4.18 or paragraph (a) has not been complied with or that the element or part referred to in paragraph (a) is not completely contained in the earlier application concerned, the receiving Office shall proceed as provided for in Rule 20.3(b)(i), 20.5(b) or 20.5(c), as the case may be.
20.7 Time Limit
(a) The applicable time limit referred to in Rules 20.3(a) and (b), 20.4, 20.5(a), (b) and (c), and 20.6(a) shall be:
(i) where an invitation under Rule 20.3(a) or 20.5(a), as applicable, was sent to the applicant, two months from the date of the invitation;
(ii) where no such invitation was sent to the applicant, two months from the date on which one or more elements referred to in Article 11(1)(iii) were first received by the receiving Office.
(b) Where neither a correction under Article 11(2) nor a notice under Rule 20.6(a) confirming the incorporation by reference of an element referred to in Article 11(1)(iii)(d) or (e) is received by the receiving Office prior to the expiration of the applicable time limit under paragraph (a), any such correction or notice received by that Office after the expiration of that time limit but before it sends a notification to the applicant under Rule 20.4(i) shall be considered to have been received within that time limit.
4.18 Statement of Incorporation by Reference
Where the international application, on the date on which one or more elements referred to in Article 11(1)(iii) were first received by the receiving Office, claims the priority of an earlier application, the request may contain a statement that, where an element of the international application referred to in Article 11(1)(iii)(d) or (e) or a part of the description, claims or drawings referred to in Rule 20.5(a) is not otherwise contained in the international application but is completely contained in the earlier application, that element or part is, subject to confirmation under Rule 20.6, incorporated by reference in the international application for the purposes of Rule 20.6. Such a statement, if not contained in the request on that date, may be added to the request if, and only if, it was otherwise contained in, or submitted with, the international application on that date.
The instant application is a 371 application which has an International filing date of 4/11/2022. See a partial capture of the BIB sheet of the instant application below.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The incorporation by reference statement is being added by way of an amendment filed 8/26/2024, which is after the instant application's International filing date of 4/11/2022. Therefore, the “incorporation by reference” statement being added to the instant specification by way of the Preliminary Amendment is deemed new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 33, 35, 36, 38-40, 42-45, 47, 49, 50, 63, 72, and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for treating a β coronavirus-induced disease via a cannabinoid acid, does not reasonably provide enablement for preventing infection by a β coronavirus via a cannabinoid acid. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
As stated in the MPEP § 2164.01(a): “There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is ‘undue’.” In In re Wands (8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), the Federal Circuit established that the following factors are to be considered when determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The nature of the invention - is a method of treating and/or preventing a disease mediated by EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation via furmonertinib.
The state of the prior art - the pharmacological art requires the screening of potential drug candidates in vitro and in vivo to determine if the drug candidates exhibit the desired pharmacological activities.
In order to treat a disease: one would need to precisely identify what the disease is, identify what biological target is connected with the disease, demonstrate that the drug candidate in some way modulates the normal processes of the biological target, and demonstrate that a patient benefited from such modification without detrimental side effects. Typically, this process includes in vitro laboratory screening, preclinical in vivo screening, and three phases of clinical trials. Once this arduous process has been successfully completed by a drug candidate, subsequent drug candidates will benefit from the established proof of concept. The subsequent drug candidates must demonstrate a substantial correlation between their biological activity and that of the known drug candidate.
In order to prevent a disease: one would need to precisely identify those subjects likely to acquire such a disease, administer Applicant’s claimed invention, and demonstrate that the patient did not develop the disease as a result of the administration of the claim invention.
In the instant case, the prior arts recognize that furmonertinib can treat advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation. For example, see Han et al., “Preclinical and preliminary clinical investigations of furmonertinib in NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions (20ins)”. Annals of Oncology, 2021, 32. S964 (IDS filed 7/1/2024).
The predictability or unpredictability of the art – the law recognizes the pharmaceutical art as an unpredictable art and requires each embodiment to be individually assessed for physiological activity. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18 24 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, the more unpredictable an area is the more specific disclosure is necessary in order to satisfy the statute. Section 2164.02 of the MPEP provides:
"[C]orrelation” as used herein refers to the relationship between in vitro and in
vivo animal model assays and a disclosed or a claimed method of use . . . if the
art is such that a particular model is recognized as correlating to a specific
condition, then it should be accepted as correlating unless the examiner has
evidence that the model does not correlate.
In light of these remarks, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would agree with the court; that is, the pharmaceutical art is unpredictable. Thus, a substantial correlation is necessary for establishing the potential of new therapeutics.
The amount of direction or guidance presented – the instant specification briefly provides an explanation of the biological activity of EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation on pp. 1-3, and discusses the implication of furmonertinib in the treatment of the disease mediated by EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation. There is no direction or guidance provided that supports a use of furmonertinib as a drug for preventing a disease mediated by EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation, as instantly embraced.
The amount of guidance or direction to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. MPEP § 2164.03 (quoting In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18 24 (CCPA 1970)). As identified supra, the pharmaceutical art is recognized as unpredictable.
Thus, in order to support a claim for preventing a disease mediated by EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation, a vast amount of evidence is required because such a claim is not supported by the prior art or the instant specification.
The presence or absence of working examples - there are no working or prophetic examples in the specification that demonstrate that the furmonertinib or composition thereof may prevent a disease mediated by EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation, as instantly embraced. The assays in the specification demonstrate that the furmonertinib was tested for their anti-tumor activity toward NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation in vitro (pg. 26-30 of the instant specification)
The breadth of the claims – is incommensurate in scope with the disclosure because a fair reading of the specification fails to support a finding that furmonertinib may prevent a disease mediated by EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation in a patient.
The quantity of experimentation necessary – generally speaking, the amount of experimentation to transform a molecule into medicine is vast and the success thereof is low. Recent statistics indicate that the attrition rates during drug development remain high. Schafer et al. Drug Discovery Today 2008, 13 (21/22), 913-916. The article makes clear that there are many steps necessary to promote a new molecular entity toward its clinical use, any one of which is cumbersome.
For instance, Schafer et al. discloses: "proof of concept trials have failed when the decision to enter clinical development was based on preclinical experiments using the wrong compound, the wrong experimental model, or the wrong endpoint.” It can be gleaned from this article that a plethora of experimentation is needed to identify the lead compound (i.e. one among many in a Markush-type claim), to establish which preclinical tests are predictive of clinical success, and to establish which diseases are the best to target for each lead compound.
There is generally a vast amount of experimentation to take a drug from bench to the clinic. See e.g., Horig et al. Journal of Translational Medicine 2004, 2(44) (“Successful drug development requires satisfying a matrix of domains from relevance to the disease and the drug-ability of the target through feasibility and convenience of drug delivery, demonstration of favorable benefit-risk profile in order to achieve a drug label that reflects physician and patent acceptance.") The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would agree with the statements in these articles; that is, the amount of experimentation required to enable a pharmaceutical drug is extensive.
The level of skill in the art - the level of ordinary skill in the art may be found by inquiring into: (1) the type of problems encountered in the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the technology; and (5) the education level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 855, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). All of those factors may not be present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Based on the typical education level of the active workers in the field of pharmaceuticals and/or medicine, as well as the high degree of sophistication required to solve problems encountered in the art, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a college degree in a field related to medicine and/or the pharmaceutical art and at least four years of work experience, i.e. a masters or doctorate level scientist/clinician.
Conclusion – Claims 33, 35, 36, 38-40, 42-45, 47, 49, 50, 63, 72, and 73 are rejected because the Examiner finds that the Wands factors suggest a conclusion that the skilled artisan would not be able to make and use the instant invention without undue experimentation, although the level of skill for an ordinary person in the art is high. That is, due to the breadth of the claims, the unpredictability of the art, the lack of guidance or direction from the disclosure, the lack of any working examples, and the amount of experimentation needed illustrate that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to prevent a disease mediated by EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation.
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 33, 35, 36, 38-40, 42-45, 47, 49, 50, 60, 63, 66, and 71-73 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 33, the claim recites the phrase, “A method of treating and/or preventing a disease mediated by EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation”. The term, “and”, is interpreted by the Examiner that the disease mediated by EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation is treated and prevented at the same time. Accordingly, it is unclear to the Examiner how a patient can be treated for the disease mediated by EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation, which means the disease is present, while preventing the disease at the same time. With such ambiguity, the metes and bounds of this claim is unclear, which rendered the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 63, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 35, 36, 38-40, 42-45, 47, 49, 50, 60, 63, 66, and 71-73, the claims are directly or indirectly dependent of claim 33, and they failed to correct the indefiniteness issue of claim 33, which rendered these claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 33, 36, 38-40, and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Preclinical and preliminary clinical investigations of furmonertinib in NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions (20ins)”, hereinafter Han. See IDS filed 7/1/2024.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claims 33, 36, 38-40, and 43-45, Han, for instance, teaches furmonertinib for treating advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations in 3 cohorts of patients. Cohort 1 is treatment-naïve, wherein furmonertinib is administered at 240 mg qd. Cohorts 2 and 3 are previously treated, wherein furmonertinib is administered at 240 mg qd and 160 mg qd, respectively.
PNG
media_image2.png
458
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Method and Results section)
Claims 33, 36, 40, 42, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Advanced lung adenocarcinoma patient with EGFR exon 20 insertion benefits from high-dose furmonertinib for nine months after progression from mobocertinib: a case report”, hereinafter Jia. See IDS filed 7/1/2024.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claims 33, 36, 40, 42, and 43, Jia, for instance, teaches the use of 80 mg/d or 160 mg/d of furmonertinib for treating advanced lung adenocarcinoma patient with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation.
All of which meet all the limitations of these claims.
PNG
media_image3.png
720
1170
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(pg. 1)
Claims 33, 35, 36, 38-40, 43, 44, 50, 60, 66, 71, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Study of FURMONERTINIB in Patients With NSCLC Having Exon 20 Insertion Mutation (FAVOUR)”, hereinafter NCT04858958. See IDS filed 7/1/2024.
Regarding claims 33, 35, 36, 38-40, 43, 44, 50, 60, 66, 71, and 72, NCT04858958, for instance, furmonertinib mesylate is used to treat locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation. There are 20 treated patients and 10 treatment-naïve patients. The subjects with disease progression after previously systematic anti-tumor therapy will be randomized to receive furmonertinib mesylate 160 mg/day or 240 mg/day, respectively.
PNG
media_image4.png
200
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(pg. 1)
The patient will also have the following criteria:
PNG
media_image5.png
46
604
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
62
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
92
586
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
112
604
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
66
598
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
24
466
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(pg. 4-6)
All of which meet all the limitations of these claims.
Conclusion
Claims 33, 35, 36, 38-40, 42-45, 47, 49, 50, 60, 63, 66, 71-73 are rejected.
Claims 78 and 79 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-32, 34, 37, 41, 46, 48, 51-59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67-70, and 74-77 are cancelled.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO-CHIH CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Clinton Brooks can be reached at (571)270-7682. 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.
/PO-CHIH CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
