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 .
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objections to the abstract are withdrawn in view of the amended abstract.
The objections to claims 6 and 17 are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 6, 11, and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The rejections of claims 17-18, 20-22, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Zhang, as evidenced by Monroe Engineering, are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The previous rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 6, 11, 17-22, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The previous rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 6, 11, 17-22, and 26 on the grounds of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting over the claims of copending Application No. 19/471,685 are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Applicants' amendments and arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 9-10, 12-14, 23-25, 27-30, 32-70, and 72-76 are cancelled.
Claims 3, 5, 7-8, 15-16, 31, and 71 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 11, 17-22, and 26 are under current examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/13/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The use of the term lipiodol, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding instant claim 4, the limitation “the active metal microspheres are prepared by a gas atomization powdering method, in which an active metal ingot is heated and molten, and then atomized and cooled to obtain the active metal microspheres” is a product-by-process limitation. Per MPEP 2113, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Here, absent evidence to the contrary, the process of preparing active metal microspheres recited in claim 4 does not structurally limit the active metal microspheres claimed in instant claim 1.
Similarly, claim 17 recites the product-by-process limitation “the active metal microsphere is prepared from an active metal which is selected from at least one of magnesium, zinc, gallium, manganese, and tin”. Here, the Examiner interprets that the process structurally limits the active metal microsphere to comprising at least one of magnesium, zinc, gallium, manganese, and tin.
Rejections Maintained
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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites, “the active metal microsphere is shaped as a sphere, a porous structure, or an urchin-like or polyhedral structure”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised by what shapes are encompassed by the term “urchin-like”. It is further unclear how a “microsphere” can be shaped as a structure other than a sphere.
New Rejections Necessitated by Claim Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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.
Claim 6 recites “The composite agent according to claim 4, characterized in that the active metal comprises one or more of magnesium, zinc, gallium, manganese, and tin”. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends and claim 6 ultimately depends, recites “the active metal is one or more of magnesium, zinc, gallium, manganese, and tin”. Claim 6 therefore fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
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, 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 11, 17-22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett et al. (US 2011/0104052 A1, published May 5th, 2011), hereafter “Barnett”, as evidenced by National Cancer Institute (“ethiodized oil” NIH, https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-drug/def/ethiodized-oil).
Regarding instant claims 1, 4, and 6, Barnett teaches a polymer matrix comprising nanoparticles which are undecorated or decorated metallic nanoparticles (see entire document, particularly claims 1 and 5-6). The matrix forms a microsphere (paragraph [0026]), and representative nanoparticles that can be incorporated into the matrix include tin, magnesium, and manganese nanoparticles (paragraph [0309]). As the matrix microspheres of Barnett include the active metals recited in the instant claims, they are interpreted as meeting the limitation of active metal microspheres. Barnett teaches that the microspheres and compositions can be used for embolization (see claim 34 and paragraph [0390]). Barnett further teaches that active materials can be combined with a carrier material in an amount which produces a therapeutic effect, generally from about 1 percent to about ninety-nine percent, preferably from about 5 percent to about 70 percent (paragraph [0480]), overlapping the claimed range. Pharmaceutically acceptable carriers include oils (paragraph [0234]), and Barnett teaches that radiopaque contrast agents including ethiodized oil are useful in particular embodiments (paragraph [0508]). As evidenced by National Cancer Institute, ethiodized oil is a synonym of iodized oil (see pg. 1).
Regarding instant claim 2, Barnett teaches that a microfluidic droplet generator can be used to make very small spheres, e.g., 20-250 µm, preferably 20-150 µm (paragraph [0552]), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding instant claim 11, as noted above, Barnett teaches that a microfluidic droplet generator can be used to make very small spheres, e.g., 20-250 µm, preferably 20-150 µm (paragraph [0552]); Barnett further exemplifies spheres with a diameter of 100 µm (see Fig. 11 and paragraph [0191]), consistent with the instant claim.
Regarding instant independent claim 17, as noted above, Barnett teaches a polymer matrix comprising nanoparticles which are undecorated or decorated metallic nanoparticles (see entire document, particularly claims 1 and 5-6). The matrix forms a microsphere (paragraph [0026]), and representative nanoparticles that can be incorporated into the matrix include tin, magnesium, and manganese nanoparticles (paragraph [0309]). As the matrix microspheres of Barnett include the active metals recited in the instant claim, they are interpreted as meeting the limitation of an active metal microsphere. Barnett teaches that the microspheres and compositions can be used for embolization (see claim 34 and paragraph [0390]). Barnett teaches that a microfluidic droplet generator can be used to make very small spheres, e.g., 20-250 µm, preferably 20-150 µm (paragraph [0552]), overlapping the claimed range; Barnett exemplifies spheres with a diameter of 100 µm (see Fig. 11 and paragraph [0191]).
Regarding instant claims 18 and 20-22, as noted above, Barnett teaches that active materials can be combined with a carrier material (paragraph [0480]), that pharmaceutically acceptable carriers include oils (paragraph [0234]), and that radiopaque contrast agents including ethiodized oil are useful in particular embodiments (paragraph [0508]). As evidenced by National Cancer Institute, ethiodized oil is a synonym of iodized oil (dispersant consistent with those recited in instant claim 22) and contains an iodine addition product of the ethyl esters of fatty acids of poppyseed oil (see pg. 1); the ethiodized oil of Barnett is thus interpreted as meeting the limitations of an organic phase dispersant (instant claim 20) and an oil phase dispersant (instant claim 21).
Regarding instant claim 19, Barnett teaches active materials can be combined with a carrier material in an amount which produces a therapeutic effect, generally from about 1 percent to about ninety-nine percent, preferably from about 5 percent to about 70 percent (paragraph [0480]), suggesting that the remainder of the composition is carrier material. Pharmaceutically acceptable carriers include oils (paragraph [0234]), and radiopaque contrast agents including ethiodized oil are useful in particular embodiments (paragraph [0508]). Barnett therefore suggests a ratio of active metal microsphere to oil dispersant consistent with the instant claim; for example, if the microspheres are present at 5% and the carrier oil makes up the remaining 95%, this limitation is satisfied.
Regarding instant claim 26, noted above, Barnett teaches microspheres, interpreted to be shaped as a sphere (see also Figs. 11 and 20).
Barnett does not teach the combination of active metal microspheres with iodized oil nor the recited mass percentages, particle sizes, or mass ratios with sufficient specificity to anticipate, but rather renders obvious the instant claims. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the prior art elements of tin, magnesium, or manganese-containing microspheres and ethiodized oil taught by Barnett according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As set forth above Barnett teaches that polymer matrix microspheres comprising metal nanoparticles can be used in embolization and teaches that metals including tin, manganese, and magnesium are suitable for use in the microspheres. Barnett teaches that polymer matrix compositions can also be used for locoregional delivery of therapeutic agents (abstract). Barnett teaches the inclusion of radiopaque contrast agents including ethiodized oil, and that radiopaque contrast agents are used for visualization on X-ray modalities (paragraph [0538]). Rearrangement of the prior art elements taught by Barnett to reach the composition of the instant claims is within the purview of a person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton and would predictably result in a composition that can be used for embolization and locoregional delivery of therapeutic agents and which can be visualized by X-ray techniques. Further, from MPEP 2141 I., "[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.)”.
Regarding the recited mass percentages, particle sizes, and mass ratios, Barnett teaches ranges overlapping those of the instant claims, rendering them prima facie obvious. Per MPEP 2144.05 I., “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. Further, Barnett suggests that the amount of active materials can be adjusted in order to achieve a therapeutic effect (paragraph [0480]), and that a desired particle size can be obtained by adjusting the synthesis conditions (paragraphs [0552] and [0563]), suggesting that one of ordinary skill in the art could routinely optimize these parameters to achieve a desired size and therapeutic effect. Per MPEP 2144.05 II. A., “"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 11, 17-22, and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, and 13 of copending Application No. 19/471,685 in view of Barnett et al. (US 2011/0104052 A1, published May 5th, 2011), hereafter “Barnett”, as evidenced by National Cancer Institute (“ethiodized oil” NIH, https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-drug/def/ethiodized-oil).
Both the instant claims and those of copending Application No. 19/471,685 recite an embolic agent comprising microspheres comprising active metals with overlapping particle sizes. Both set of claims further recite that the active metal comprises one or more of magnesium, zinc, and tin.
The claims of copending Application No. 19/471,685 do not recite the inclusion of iodized oil, as required by instant claim 1 or a dispersant of an organic phase, oil phase, or one of more of iodized oil, poppyseed oil, soybean oil, and olive oil (as required by instant claims 18, and 20-22). The claims of copending Application No. 19/471,685 do not recite the mass percentage range recited in claim 1 or the mass ratio range recited in claim 19.
Barnett teaches a polymer matrix comprising nanoparticles which are undecorated or decorated metallic nanoparticles (see entire document, particularly claims 1 and 5-6). The matrix forms a microsphere (paragraph [0026]), and representative nanoparticles that can be incorporated into the matrix include tin and magnesium nanoparticles (paragraph [0309]). As the matrix microspheres of Barnett include the active metals recited in the instant claims, they are interpreted as active metal microspheres. Barnett teaches that the microspheres and compositions can be used for embolization (see claim 34 and paragraph [0390]). Barnett teaches active materials can be combined with a carrier material (paragraph [0480]), that pharmaceutically acceptable carriers include oils (paragraph [0234]), and that radiopaque contrast agents including ethiodized oil are useful in particular embodiments (paragraph [0508]). Radiopaque contrast agents are used for visualization on X-ray modalities (paragraph [0538]). As evidenced by National Cancer Institute, ethiodized oil is a synonym of iodized oil and contains an iodine addition product of the ethyl esters of fatty acids of poppyseed oil (see pg. 1); the ethiodized oil of Barnett is thus interpreted as meeting the limitations of an organic phase dispersant (instant claim 20) and an oil phase dispersant (instant claim 21). Barnett teaches active materials can be combined with a carrier material in an amount which produces a therapeutic effect, generally from about 1 percent to about ninety-nine percent, preferably from about 5 percent to about 70 percent (paragraph [0480]), suggesting that the remainder of the composition is carrier material. Barnett therefore suggests a ratio of active metal microsphere to oil dispersant consistent with the instant claim; for example, if the microspheres are present at 5% and the carrier oil makes up the remaining 95%, this limitation is satisfied.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the embolic agent claimed in copending Application No. 19/471,685 with the ethiodized oil of Barnett. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to incorporate a radiopaque agent to achieve a composition comprising active metal-containing microspheres that can be used for embolization and which can be visualized by X-ray techniques, as suggested by Barnett
It would further have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amounts and ratios of components as Further, Barnett suggests that the amount of active materials can be adjusted in order to achieve a therapeutic effect (paragraph [0480]), suggesting that one of ordinary skill in the art could routinely optimize the amounts of components to achieve a desired therapeutic effect. Per MPEP 2144.05 II. A., “"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)” and per MPEP 2144.05 II. A., “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
Given that the subject matter of the instant claims is obvious and substantially overlaps the subject matter of copending Application No. 19/471,685, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections and claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to replace the trade name lipiodol with the generic term iodized oil, to remove the limitation that the active metal has a metal activity greater than that of hydrogen, and to correct claim dependencies. However, regarding instant claim 26, Applicant argues that the term “microsphere” conveys clear structural boundaries to a person of ordinary skill in the art; specifically, a "microsphere" is a particulate body having a generally spherical macroscopic morphology, which may include surface features such as a porous structure, or an urchin-like or polyhedral structure, consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term in the relevant art. Applicant therefore submits that this language of claim 26 is indeed definite.
These arguments are unpersuasive. The instant specification does not define the term “microsphere”, and the Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret that the term “microsphere” implies a spherical shape. Applicant does not provide or cite to any evidence that the ordinary and customary meaning of the term in the relevant art includes surface features such as a porous structure, or an urchin-like or polyhedral structure. Even assuming en arguendo that the term implies a generally spherical macroscopic morphology, the Examiner respectfully maintains that one of ordinary skill would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of shapes that fall within the boundaries of the term “urchin-like”.
Regarding the prior art rejections over Zhang, Applicant argues that aluminum and iron are deleted from the recited active metals of the amended claims, and Zhang does not disclose an active metal microsphere of magnesium, zinc, gallium, manganese, or tin. Applicant further argues that Zhang is concerned with inducing ferromagnetic microspheres (e.g., stainless steel, nickel-copper alloys, iron-aluminum alloys), which are then heated under a strong external magnetic field. In contrast, the active metals recited in amended claims 1 and 17 are active metals that react with the mildly acidic tumor microenvironment to release hydrogen gas and generate hydroxides that neutralize the acidic environment, thereby improving the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. This mechanism and the underlying technical problem that it solves are neither disclosed nor suggested by Zhang.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Zhang have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, necessitated by claim amendments, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New rejections which address the amended claim limitations are set forth above.
Regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejections over the claims of copending Application 19/471,685 in view of Zhang, as evidenced by FDA, Applicant similarly argues that the amended claims require an active metal falling outside the ferromagnetic metals to which Zhang's iodized-oil teaching is tied. Because Zhang's motivation for combining iodized oil with metal microspheres is inextricably tied to Zhang's ferromagnetic metals and eddy-current heating mechanism, Zhang provides no motivation to combine an iodized oil dispersant with the active metal microspheres of copending Application No. 19/471,685 in the manner required by the presently amended claims, and the obviousness-type double patenting rationale cannot be sustained.
In response, the Examiner notes that, as noted above, the previous non-statutory double patenting rejections are withdrawn, and new rejections, necessitated by claim amendments, which address the amended claims are set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDITH M KAMM whose telephone number is (703)756-4575. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571)272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/J.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1611
