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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the Information Disclosure Statement filed on June 13, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of
37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing is objected to because of the following informality: the labeling of the drawing is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1),
(u) Numbering of views.
(1) The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear.
in that only a single figure has been filed. See the single filed drawing.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: a description of the figure is not disclosed in the instant specification. See MPEP §608.01(f).
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Preliminary Amendment filed May 22, 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: the phrase “the content of which applications are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference in their 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).
When a benefit claim is submitted after the filing of an application, and the later-filed application as filed did not incorporate the prior-filed application by reference, applicant cannot add an incorporation by reference statement of the prior 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) ). See Dart Indus. v. Banner, 636 F.2d 684, 207 USPQ 273 (C.A.D.C. 1980). See also 37 CFR 1.57(b).
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-08.2017]
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 December 6, 2022. See a partial capture of the BIB sheet of the instant application below.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specifically, PCT/CN2022/136989 was filed without an “incorporation by reference” statement to the earlier applications filed in China. Then, Applicant filed a 371 of the PCT and attempted to amend the specification to include the “incorporation by reference” statement via a preliminary amendment filed May 22, 2024, which is after the instant application's International filing date of December 6, 2022. This is considered new matter. MPEP 201.06(c): “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)).”
Further, in Box VI of the PCT request form, R0/101, there is a statement regarding “incorporation by reference” which basically fulfills the written notification regarding “incorporation by reference” when the document is signed. This satisfies the written notice according to Rule 4.18 but does not satisfy the conditions of PCT Rule 20.6 (a)(i)-(iv). In the PCT, Applicant is not required to explicitly state “incorporation by reference” within the PCT Specification (description pages).
However, “incorporation by reference” in the PCT must be verified per PCT Rule 20.6 (a)(i)-(iv) for incorporating specific documents which were inadvertently left out of the PCT disclosure and Applicant has only a limited amount of time to explicitly indicate, during PCT prosecution, what the missing part(s) are and to submit those missing parts into the PCT file. Once they are in the file and if they have complied with PCT Rule 20.6 (a)(i)-(iv), the additional sheets, added by “incorporation by reference” will be stamped “incorporation by reference” by WIPO. Therefore, the entirety of the PCT application, including any missing parts added by “incorporation by reference” in the PCT prosecution will be a part of the National Stage application.
Therefore, the rules and requirements surrounding “incorporation by reference” relating to PCT are different than the “incorporation by reference” in US cases, and even if they did incorporate something by reference in the PCT e.g., a page of the specification from a foreign priority document, this does not provide them “incorporation by reference” to the entire foreign priority document. Therefore, inserting “incorporation by reference” into the disclosure on or after the National Stage US filing date would be new matter. For all the reasons given above, 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.
This objection to the specification can be overcome by deleting the phrase the phrase “the content of which applications are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference in their entirety” from the instant specification.
Claim Interpretation
The L3 variable in instant formula (I),
PNG
media_image2.png
416
248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
in instant independent claim 1 is defined as a divalent linker, -C(O)NR8SO2-. Starting at the top {i.e., R1-L1-} of instant formula (I) and reading down, it would appear that the carbonyl {i.e., -C(=O)} in the L3 variable divalent linker should be attached to the nitro and R1-L1- containing ring. However, the various formulae in dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 and the specie claimed in instant dependent claim 13 all have the carbonyl in the divalent linker of variable L3 attached to the Y1, Y2 and Y3 containing ring. Therefore, prior art will be considered, and applied if valid, wherein the carbonyl of the L3 variable is attached to either the nitro and R1-L1- containing ring or the Y1, Y2 and Y3 containing ring.
The possible (R2)t substituent in instant formula (I) in instant independent claim 1,
PNG
media_image3.png
416
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, is interpreted as not being present when ring A is absent.
Claim 1 has the following proviso at the end of the claim,
PNG
media_image4.png
78
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This proviso in claim 1 is interpreted as when ring A is absent, then X represents NRb and at least one of Y1/Y2/Y3 represents N or CR7 wherein R7 does not represent hydrogen.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-7 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 3, “and IIb:” should be changed to “or IIb:” (line 2 of the claim);
in claim 4, “and IIIb:” should be changed to “or IIIb:” (line 2 of the claim);
in claim 5, an “or” should be added before
“
PNG
media_image5.png
72
62
media_image5.png
Greyscale
” for proper Markush language format;
in claim 6, “and IVc:” should be changed to “or IVc:” (line 2 of the claim);
in claim 7, the phrase “having a structure of general formulas Va-Vf:” should be changed to “having a structure of one of general formulas Va-Vf:” (lines 1-2 of the claim); and
in claim 13, an “or” should be added before the last compound claimed for proper Markush language format.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 15-18 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 15-18 are drafted in terms of “use”, however “use” is not one of the statutory classes of invention. Clinical Products v. Brenner, 149 USPQ 475, 476 (1966).
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 is unclear because variable R2 is defined as a halogenated C1-C8 cycloalkyl (see the next to the last line of page 3). However, a cycloalkyl ring has a minimum of three (3) carbons. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite.
In claim 1, under the definition of variable R2, the phrase “and 2 R2 can form a 3-6” should be changed to “or 2 R2 can form a 3-6” because the phrase is defining an alternative definition of the R2 variable (see the last line of page 3). See variables Re and Rm in claim 1 for same.
In claim 1, under the definition of variable R2, the phrase “and can form a 3-8 membered parallel ring” should be changed to “or can form a 3-8 membered parallel ring” because the phrase is defining an alternative definition of the R2 variable (see the first line of page 4). See variables Re and Rm in claim 1 and variable Re in claim 2 for same.
In claim 1, under the definition of variable L3, “selected from” should be deleted because there is only one substituent listed under the definition of L3. See claim 10 for same. Using “selected from” in this instance makes claims 1 and 10 unclear and therefore, indefinite.
In claim 1, under the definition of variable R10, it states “wherein R10 can be substituted on a carbon or nitrogen atom”. However, neither of the two nitrogens which can be substituted in the bicyclic rings under the definition of R3,
PNG
media_image6.png
122
394
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, have any availability for substitution because of the fixed hydrogens attached to these two nitrogens. See claim 2 for same. Therefore, claims 1 and 2 are indefinite.
A valence problem is raised when R1, Rg, Rh, Ri and Rj represent oxo and when R1 represents NH(CH)Rg in claim 1 because in each of these instances a mono-valent substituent is expected. See claim 2 for same.
In the proviso at the end of claim 1, “selected from” used to define ring A and variable X should be deleted because there is only one substituent listed under these particular variable definitions in the proviso. Using “selected from” in these instances makes claim 1 unclear and therefore, indefinite.
The proviso at the end of claim 1 should be re-written for the sake of clarity. See claim 2 for same (see page 7, line 7 of the page). A possible re-write would include “then” in the proviso.
Claims dependent on independent claim 1 which do not resolve the problems identified above in claim 1 are also found indefinite.
In claims 6 and 7, under the definition of variable R2, it states “R2 can be substituted on carbon or nitrogen”. However, the nitrogens in the bicyclic rings which can be substituted in the various formulae in claims 6 and 7 in which the R2 variable is variably attached do not have any availability for substitution because of the fixed hydrogens attached to these nitrogens.
Claim 9 lacks proper antecedent basis from claim 1 because there is no earlier recitation in claim 1 that the R1 variable can be substituted with variable Rm. In claim 1, the R1 variable can be further substituted by one or more Rj. Although there is some overlap in the definitions of variables Rm and Rj, there are also some differences in the definitions for variables Rm and Rj. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "further preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (line 4 of the claim). See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 11, under the definition of variable X, “selected from” should be deleted because there is only one substituent listed under the definition of variable X. Using “selected from” in this instance makes claim 11 unclear and therefore, indefinite.
In claim 16, the phrase “polo-like kinase inhibitors” and the phrase “and the like” (lines 6, 9 and 10 of page 36) makes the claim unclear and therefore, indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (lines 2 and 6 of the claim). See MPEP § 2173.05(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.
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 9 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.
Claim 9 fails to further limit claim 1 because claim 9 is broader in scope than claim 1. Claim 1 does not state that the R1 variable can be substituted with variable Rm. In claim 1, the R1 variable can be further substituted by one or more Rj. There are differences in the definitions for variables Rm and Rj.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tan et al. {WO 2023/078398 A1}.
Tan et al. disclose, for instance, Example 16 on page 67,
PNG
media_image7.png
184
894
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
which is embraced by a compound of instant formula (I),
PNG
media_image8.png
416
248
media_image8.png
Greyscale
when
ring A = a 5-membered heteroaromatic ring,
PNG
media_image9.png
70
68
media_image9.png
Greyscale
;
Y1 = CR7 and R7 = hydrogen;
Y2 = CR7 and R7 = hydrogen;
Y3 = CR7 and R7 = hydrogen;
L2 = -O-;
L3 = -C(O)NR8SO2- where R8 = hydrogen;
R3 =
PNG
media_image10.png
82
134
media_image10.png
Greyscale
where R10 = hydrogen;
ring B = a 9-membered spiroheterocyclyl,
PNG
media_image11.png
146
54
media_image11.png
Greyscale
;
ring C = aryl;
X = NRb where
Rb = C1 alkyl substituted with one Rd,
Rd = aryl substituted with one Re, and
Re = C1 alkoxy;
o = 2;
p = one and R5 = hydrogen;
q = one and R6 = C3 alkyl;
r = one and R4 = hydrogen;
t = one and R2 = hydrogen;
L1 = NRf and Rf = hydrogen; and
R1 = alkyl substituted with one Rj where
Rj = cycloalkyl substituted with more than one Rm, and
Rm = C1 alkyl and hydroxy;
-OR-
see Compound 039 in instant claim 13, which is a stereoisomer
of Example 16 in Tan et al.
Tan et al. disclose that his compounds, or pharmaceutical salts or stereoisomers thereof, inhibit anti-apoptotic B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL-2) and may be useful for the treatment of hyper-proliferative diseases like cancer, inflammation or immune and autoimmune diseases {paragraph [2] on page 1; paragraphs [139]-[143] on page 51; and paragraph [164] on page 54}. Tan et al. disclose pharmaceutical compositions comprising his compounds alone or in combination with one or more therapeutic agents {paragraphs [146] on page 52}. Therefore, Tan et al. anticipate the instant claimed invention.
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.
The comparison showings in the instant specification in paragraphs [0613]-[0631] on pages 154-158 have been considered. Applicant has compared compounds of the instant claimed invention with compounds disclosed in the prior art. Applicant compared a compound from WO 2021/208963 and has labelled this compound as “Compound a”,
PNG
media_image12.png
134
282
media_image12.png
Greyscale
. Applicant has also used in a comparison study Compound 142 from CN 114478520 and has labelled this compound as “Compound b”,
PNG
media_image13.png
138
434
media_image13.png
Greyscale
. However, Compound 142 is far removed, structurally, from the instant claimed compounds because of the proviso at the end of instant independent claim 1 which stipulates that X is NRb when ring A is absent. Therefore, comparison studies using Compound 142 from CN 114478520 is not persuasive. Further, the comparison showings in the instant specification is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. In re Greenfield, 197 U.S.P.Q. 227 (1978) and In re Lindner, 173 U.S.P.Q. 356 (1972). Also see MPEP §716.02(d). To establish unexpected, beneficial and superior results of the instant claimed compounds over the closest prior art compounds, Applicant should compare by testing a sufficient number of exemplified prior art compounds with the compounds of the instant claimed invention. Therefore, the comparison showings in the instant specification are not persuasive.
Reminder to Applicant
As a reminder, Applicant should specifically point out the support in the original disclosure {i.e., page number(s) and line number(s)} for any new claims or amended claims and for any amendments made to the disclosure. Making generic statements such as “all amendments are fully supported in the originally filed disclosure or the originally filed claims” without specifying page numbers and originally filed claim numbers are insufficient. See MPEP §714.02 and MPEP §2163.06(I).
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to:
Laura L. Stockton
(571) 272-0710.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 6 pm, Eastern Standard Time.
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 acting supervisor,
James Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached on 571/272-5548. 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.
/LAURA L STOCKTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626 Work Group 1620
Technology Center 1600
June 25, 2026
Book XXIX, page 95
Prosecution Insights