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 .
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, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 31, 34, 35, 38, 52, 63-70 and 77 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.
The rejected claims cover compounds with minor groove binding agents.
To satisfy the written-description requirement, the specification must describe every element of the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventor possessed the claimed invention at the time of filing. Vas-Cath, 935 F.3d at 1563; see also Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that “the inventor invented the claimed invention”); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed”).
With regard to the recited genus of minor groove binding agents, the following applies:
Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010) states that “...a generic claim may define the boundaries of a vast genus of chemical compounds...the question may still remain whether the specification, including the original claim language, demonstrates that the applicant invented species sufficient to support a claim to a genus”. See page 1171.
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
See also Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a “laundry list” disclosure of every possible moiety does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not “reasonably lead” those skilled in the art to any particular species.
Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) states that “it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it”.
A description of a genus may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus, so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus (Emphasis added). Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F3d 1559, 1569, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004)(“[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.”). “A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when ... the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed.” In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly (43 USPQ2d 1398-1412), the court held that a generic statement which defines a genus of nucleic acids by only their functional activity does not provide an adequate written description of the genus. The court indicated that, while applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by a genus, the description of the genus is achieved by the recitation of a representative number of species falling within the scope of the claimed genus. At section B(i), the court states, "An adequate written description of a DNA ... requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention."
Courts have stated that “[i]n claims involving [non-genetic] chemical materials, generic formulae usually indicate with specificity what the generic claims encompass. One skilled in the art can distinguish such a formula from others and can identify many of the species that the claims encompass. Accordingly, such a formula is normally an adequate description of the claimed genus.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). (emphasis added).
There is no such specificity here, nor could one skilled in the art identify any particular compound encompassed by the claims. Specifically, Applicant fails to disclose any other minor groove binding agents, besides those that may be identified in the specification, and in relation to the above, these disclosed species or subgenre do not represent the substantial variety covered by the genus of minor groove binding agents.
With regard to the functional definition of minor groove binding agents, the specification does not clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed (see Vas-Cath at page 1116) because the specification contains almost no information by which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the inventors possessed the all of the recited compounds. At best, it simply indicates that one should test an inordinate number of compounds to see if the compounds can perform the required function. In this connection, the specification contains no generic structural characteristics of those compounds which minor groove binding agents, see In re ’318 Patent Infringement Litigation, 583 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[A]t the end of the day, the specification, even read in light of the knowledge of those skilled in the art, does no more than state a hypothesis and propose testing to determine the accuracy of that hypothesis. That is not sufficient.”).
The Examiner acknowledges that a working example or exemplified embodiment is not necessarily a requirement for description. However, where a generic claim term is present in a claim, as in the present application, and defined only by functional characteristics, the specification must convey enough information, e.g., via sufficient representative examples, to indicate invention of species sufficient to constitute the genus. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 967 2 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The written description requirement “requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“A patent...‘is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion.’ ... For that reason, the written description requirement prohibits a patentee from ‘leaving it to the ... industry to complete an unfinished invention.’” (citations omitted)).
Accordingly, the specification lacks adequate written description for the recited minor groove binding agents.
Claims 1, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 31, 34, 35, 38, 52, 63-70 and 77 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.
The rejected claims cover comprising a cell binding ligand which embraces targeting agents that are not antibodies, or antigen-binding fragments thereof.
To satisfy the written-description requirement, the specification must describe every element of the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventor possessed the claimed invention at the time of filing. Vas-Cath, 935 F.3d at 1563; see also Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that “the inventor invented the claimed invention”); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed”).
With regard to the recited targeting moieties, the following applies:
Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010) states that “...a generic claim may define the boundaries of a vast genus of chemical compounds...the question may still remain whether the specification, including the original claim language, demonstrates that the applicant invented species sufficient to support a claim to a genus”. See page 1171.
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
See also Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a “laundry list” disclosure of every possible moiety does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not “reasonably lead” those skilled in the art to any particular species.
Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) states that “it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it”.
A description of a genus may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus, so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus (Emphasis added). Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F3d 1559, 1569, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004)(“[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.”). “A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when ... the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed.” In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly (43 USPQ2d 1398-1412), the court held that a generic statement which defines a genus of nucleic acids by only their functional activity does not provide an adequate written description of the genus. The court indicated that, while applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by a genus, the description of the genus is achieved by the recitation of a representative number of species falling within the scope of the claimed genus. At section B(i), the court states, "An adequate written description of a DNA ... requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention."
Here, Applicant desires patent protection for targeting moieties for conjugates of structure Ia. However, other than antibodies and their functional fragments, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genus of the targeting moieties within the context of the claimed ADC’s. This is because antibodies are well characterized, functionally and structurally, in the prior art. Specifically, antibodies are heavy (~150 kDa) globular plasma proteins. The size of an antibody molecule is about 10 nm. They have sugar chains (glycans) added to conserved amino acid residues. The basic functional unit of each antibody is an immunoglobulin (Ig) monomer (containing only one Ig unit); secreted antibodies can also be dimeric with two Ig units as with IgA, tetrameric with four Ig units like teleost fish IgM, or pentameric with five Ig units, like mammalian IgM. The Ig monomer is a "Y"-shaped molecule that consists of four polypeptide chains; two identical heavy chains and two identical light chains connected by disulfide bonds. Each chain is composed of structural domains called immunoglobulin domains. These domains contain about 70–110 amino acids and are classified into different categories (for example, variable or IgV, and constant or IgC) according to their size and function. They have a characteristic immunoglobulin fold in which two beta sheets create a "sandwich" shape, held together by interactions between conserved cysteines and other charged amino acids.
Some parts of an antibody have the same functions. The arms of the Y, for example, contain the sites that can bind to antigens (in general, identical) and, therefore, recognize specific foreign objects. This region of the antibody is called the Fab (fragment, antigen-binding) region. It is composed of one constant and one variable domain from each heavy and light chain of the antibody. The paratope is shaped at the amino terminal end of the antibody monomer by the variable domains from the heavy and light chains. The variable domain is also referred to as the FV region and is the most important region for binding to antigens. To be specific, variable loops of β-strands, three each on the light (VL) and heavy (VH) chains are responsible for binding to the antigen. These loops are referred to as the complementarity determining regions (CDRs). There are three CDRs (CDR1, CDR2 and CDR3), arranged non-consecutively, on the amino acid sequence of a variable domain of an antigen receptor. Since the antigen receptors are typically composed of two variable domains (on two different polypeptide chains, heavy and light chain), there are six CDRs for each antigen receptor that can collectively come into contact with the antigen. A single antibody molecule has two antigen receptors and therefore contains twelve CDRs total. There are three CDR loops per variable domain in antibodies.
However, in contrast to the function of antibodies and their functional fragments, as outlined above, the other targeting moieties covered by the claims are not sufficiently characterized by the specification or state of the art in such a manner that those of ordinary skill would understand that the instant inventors knew how to they would be structurally integrated into the instant conjugates. In particular, the specification does not provide any examples of the other targeting moieties which function within the context of the claimed compounds, and in this way, the specification does not present the requisite examples of ligands and targeting moieties, other than antibodies, given the breadth and variety of these groups covered by the claims. Specifically, the specification does not disclose a sufficient description of a representative number of species, either by actual reduction to practice, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, of those moieties which can be used in the claimed conjugates.
Moreover, the specification contains almost no information by which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the inventors possessed these moieties, which have the structural characteristics, as outlined above, which can properly function in the claimed conjugates. In this connection, the specification contains no structural or specific functional characteristics of the recited proteins and polypeptides. At best, it simply indicates that one should test an inordinate number of moieties to see if they function in the claimed conjugates, which is indicative of a lack of written description, see In re ’318 Patent Infringement Litigation, 583 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[A]t the end of the day, the specification, even read in light of the knowledge of those skilled in the art, does no more than state a hypothesis and propose testing to determine the accuracy of that hypothesis. That is not sufficient.”).
Accordingly, the specification lacks adequate written description for the recited targeting moieties.
Claims 64-66 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 cancer with antibody-drug conjugates, does not reasonably provide enablement for treating any disease with any compound covered by Ia. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
“The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement [in accordance with the statute] was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, even though the statute does not use the term "undue experimentation," it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation."). A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987); and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463, 221 USPQ 481, 489 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Determining enablement is a question of law based on underlying factual findings. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576, 224 USPQ 409, 413 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” See M.P.E.P. § 2164.
Here, the nature of the invention is treating cancer with antibody-drug conjugates comprising pyrrolobenzodiazepines. In this regard, determining the pharmacology of a particular molecule is not routine and the level of ordinary skill in the art of treating disease is high, as an ordinary artisan in this art needs specialized knowledge of the complex etiology of diseases. Applicant is reminded of the heightened enablement for these type of inventions: Specifically, the amount of guidance or direction needed 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. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). The "amount of guidance or direction" refers to that information in the application, as originally filed, that teaches exactly how to make or use the invention. The more that is known in the prior art about the nature of the invention, how to make, and how to use the invention, and the more predictable the art is, the less information needs to be explicitly stated in the specification. In contrast, if little is known in the prior art about the nature of the invention and the art is unpredictable, the specification would need more detail as to how to make and use the invention in order to be enabling. [I]n the field of chemistry generally, there may be times when the well-known unpredictability of chemical reactions will alone be enough to create a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of a particular broad statement put forward as enabling support for a claim. This will especially be the case where the statement is, on its face, contrary to generally accepted scientific principles. Most often, additional factors, such as the teachings in pertinent references, will be available to substantiate any doubts that the asserted scope of objective enablement is in fact commensurate with the scope of protection sought and to support any demands based thereon for proof. [Footnote omitted.].
Therefore, either the state of the art or the specification needs to establish that all the compounds covered by structure Ia can treat diseases besides cancer.
The prior art teaches that conjugates of pyrrolobenzodiazepine (PBD)—most notably developed as antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs)—are used primarily to treat various forms of cancer (oncology). PBD dimers function as incredibly potent cytotoxic warheads that bind to the minor groove of DNA and create interstrand crosslinks. Because they are too toxic to be administered as free chemotherapy drugs, they are chemically conjugated to targeting antibodies that deliver them directly to diseased cells. See:
Pyrrolobenzodiazepine ADCs: Redefining Precision Oncology Through DNA-Targeted Payloads downloaded 10 Sept 2026 from https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/pyrrolobenzodiazepine-adcs-redefining-precision-oncology-through-dna-targeted-payloads.htm; and
Zheng et al., Pyrrolobenzodiazepine dimers for chemotherapy and antibody-drug conjugate applications, European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, Volume 300, 2025, 118114.
Therefore, the use of antibody conjugates with for treatment of cancer may be characterized as “known”, but use of such conjugates to treat other diseases is not predictable since no nexus between the use of these compounds and treatment of diseases since antibody conjugates are designed for targeted delivery of cytotoxic agents (i.e., pyrrolobenzodiazepines) to cancer cells. Thus, it is unpredictable whether these conjugates or untargeted compounds can be used to treat diseases other than cancer.
The specification fails to remedy the state of the art. Here the specification shows synthesis of the conjugates and describes methods related to cancer. Therefore, a nexus may be established between these compounds and the treatment of cancer. The specification does not provide any additional examples or guidance on how to use the recited conjugates to treat any other diseases. Thus, the specification provides sufficient teachings only for the enablement of using antibody conjugates for the treatment of cancers. The prior art provides no compensatory guidance and it would require undue experimentation to practice the invention for treating diseases with the generic compounds of formula Ia. The amount of experimentation would be undue because it would require determining how to use the compounds to treat diseases other than cancer. Specifically, as outlined above, it is not routine to determine how a molecule will act on complex biochemistry to treat different conditions. In the instant case, it is only known that the instant compounds, when conjugated to antibodies, have cytotoxic activity against cancer cells. This means that significant experimentation would be required to determine which compounds can be used to treat different diseases as opposed to kill cancer cells when conjugated to antibodies. Those of ordinary skill in the art cannot extrapolate between the anti-cancer activity of antibody conjugates and treatment of other diseases with unconjugated compounds of structure Ia. Moreover, there is little guidance, in both the prior art and the specification, with respect to the use of such compounds to treat diseases, in general.
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, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 31, 34, 35, 38, 52, 63-70 and 77 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.
The term pyrrolobenzodiazepine encompasses many structures, derivatives and analogs. Therefore, it is unclear what structures Applicant intends to cover by this term.
The definition of L’ includes linkers to compound of structure (I). However, the claims have been amended to remove this structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL J PUTTLITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0645. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Gregory Emch, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KARL J PUTTLITZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1646
Prosecution Insights