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 an application filed 6/18/2024 claiming domestic priority to 63/568,312 filed 3/21/2024 and 63/509,027 filed 6/19/2023.
As filed, claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/1/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 11 and 12 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 therapeutically treating 17β-HSD13 mediated disease or condition, does not reasonably provide enablement for prophylactically treating or preventing 17β-HSD13 mediated disease or condition. 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 preventing or treating 17β-HSD13 mediated disease or condition via a compound of instant formula (I). In addition, the term, “treating”, embraces not only for therapeutic treatment but also for prophylactic treatment (i.e. prevention), according to pg. 187, lines 27-31 and pg. 188, lines 1-4 of the instant specification.
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 clamed invention.
In the instant case, the prior art recognizes that small molecule therapeutic agents have potential to inhibit 17β-HSD13, which can be used to treat NASH and other liver diseases. See Thamm et al., Discovery of a Novel Potent and Selective HSD17B13 Inhibitor, BI-3231, a Well-Characterized Chemical Probe Available for Open Science. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2023, 66, 2832-2850.
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 17β-HSD13 on pp. 1-5 and discusses the implication of 17β-HSD13 inhibition in the treatment of a number of liver diseases, such as NASH, HCC, etc. There is no direction or guidance provided that supports a use of a compound of instant formula (I) as a drug for prophylactically treating or preventing 17β-HSD13 mediated disease or condition.
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 prophylactically treating or preventing 17β-HSD13 mediated disease or condition, 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 compound of instant formula (I) may prophylactically treating or preventing 17β-HSD13 mediated disease or condition, as instantly embraced. The cellular assay in the specification demonstrates that the instant compounds were tested for their ability to inhibit 17β-HSD13 (pg. 194-208 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 the compound of instant formula (I) may prophylactically treating or preventing 17β-HSD13 mediated disease or condition 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 (see PTO-892 form mailed on 11/12/2021). 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) (see PTO-892 form mailed on 11/12/2021) (“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 11 and 12 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 prophylactically treating or preventing 17β-HSD13 mediated disease or condition.
Claims 13 and 16 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 therapeutically treating liver disease, does not reasonably provide enablement for prophylactically treating liver disease. 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 drawn to an intended use statement for a compound of instant formula (I) to treat a liver disease or drawn to a method of treating a liver disease via a compound of instant formula (I). In addition, the term, “treating”, embraces not only for therapeutic treatment but also for prophylactic treatment (i.e. prevention), according to pg. 187, lines 27-31 and pg. 188, lines 1-4 of the instant specification.
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 clamed invention.
In the instant case, the prior art recognizes that small molecule therapeutic agents have potential to inhibit 17β-HSD13, which can be used to treat NASH and other liver diseases. See Thamm et al., Discovery of a Novel Potent and Selective HSD17B13 Inhibitor, BI-3231, a Well-Characterized Chemical Probe Available for Open Science. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2023, 66, 2832-2850.
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 17β-HSD13 on pp. 1-5 and discusses the implication of 17β-HSD13 inhibition in the treatment of a number of liver diseases, such as NASH, HCC, etc. There is no direction or guidance provided that supports a use of a compound of instant formula (I) as a drug for prophylactically treating liver disease.
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 prophylactically treating liver disease, 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 compound of instant formula (I) may prophylactically treating liver disease, as instantly embraced. The cellular assay in the specification demonstrates that the instant compound were tested for their ability to inhibit 17β-HSD13 (pg. 194-208 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 the compound of instant formula (I) may prophylactically treating liver disease 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 (see PTO-892 form mailed on 11/12/2021). 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) (see PTO-892 form mailed on 11/12/2021) (“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 13 and 16 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 prophylactically treating liver disease.
Claims 14, 19, and 20 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation, “for use in therapy”, in reference to the instantly claimed compounds. Applicant has not described the claimed genus of “therapy” in a manner that would indicate they were in possession of the full scope of this genus, or even to describe what this genus is comprised of.
Regarding the requirement for adequate written description of chemical entities, Applicant's attention is directed to the MPEP §2163. In particular, Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089, 118 S. Ct. 1548 (1998), holds that an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, "not a mere wish or plain for obtaining the claimed chemical invention." Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1566. The Federal Circuit has adopted the standard set forth in the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under the 35 U.S.C. 112.1 "Written Description" Requirement ("Guidelines"), 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001), which state that the written description requirement can be met by "showing that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics," including, inter aria, "functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure..." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 296 F.3d 316, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1106 (emphasis added)). Moreover, although Eli Lilly and Enzo were decided within the factual context of DNA sequences, this does not preclude extending the reasoning of those cases to chemical structures in general. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 249 Supp. 2d 216, 225 (W.D.N.Y. 2003).
In the instant case, the claimed “ for use in therapy” encompasses any treatment of physical or mental illnesses, injuries, or disabilities. Applicants described treating a liver diseases (pg. 13, line 5) as an example of “for use in therapy” in respect to the instant compounds, which are not described adequately enough to allow one skilled in the art to ascertain that Applicant is in possession of the entire scope of that genus. Applicants have not described this genus in a manner that would allow one skilled in the art to immediately envisage the compounds contemplated for use.
As such, the claims lack adequate written description for the claimed “for use in therapy” in respect to the instant compounds.
Claims 19 and 20 recite the limitation, “incretin analogs”, in reference to the instantly claimed composition. Applicant has not described the claimed genus of “incretin analogs” in a manner that would indicate they were in possession of the full scope of this genus, or even to describe what this genus is comprised of.
Regarding the requirement for adequate written description of chemical entities, Applicant's attention is directed to the MPEP §2163. In particular, Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089, 118 S. Ct. 1548 (1998), holds that an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, "not a mere wish or plain for obtaining the claimed chemical invention." Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1566. The Federal Circuit has adopted the standard set forth in the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under the 35 U.S.C. 112.1 "Written Description" Requirement ("Guidelines"), 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001), which state that the written description requirement can be met by "showing that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics," including, inter aria, "functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure..." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 296 F.3d 316, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1106 (emphasis added)). Moreover, although Eli Lilly and Enzo were decided within the factual context of DNA sequences, this does not preclude extending the reasoning of those cases to chemical structures in general. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 249 Supp. 2d 216, 225 (W.D.N.Y. 2003).
In the instant case, the claimed “incretin analogs” encompasses incretin that contains differing of substituents, functional groups, and limitless and undefined moieties quoted for the identical purpose. Applicants failed to describe any example of “incretin analogs” in respect to the instant composition, which are not described adequately enough to allow one skilled in the art to ascertain that Applicant is in possession of the entire scope of that genus. Applicants have not described this genus in a manner that would allow one skilled in the art to immediately envisage the compounds contemplated for use.
As such, the claims lack adequate written description for the claimed “incretin analogs” in respect to the instant composition.
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 1, 2, 6-8, and 10-20 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 1, the claim recites the phrase, “may be connected to one another to form a ring of 3 to 6 carbons”. The use of the phrase, “may be”, introduced ambiguity into the scope of the claim, and it is unclear to the Examiner whether instant variables R1 and R2 are connected to one another to form a ring of 3 to 6 carbons. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of this claim are unclear, which rendered the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 2 and 10-20, the claims are dependent of claim 1, and they failed to correct the indefiniteness issue of claim 1, which rendered the claims indefinite.
Regarding claims 6-8, the claims recite the phrase, “may form a ring of C3-C8 carbons”. The use of the phrase, “may”, introduced ambiguity into the scope of the claims, and it is unclear to the Examiner whether two instant variable R* on -CONR*2 may form a ring of C3-C8 carbons. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of these claims are unclear, which rendered the claims indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the phrase, “the treatment of NASH”, wherein the word, “the”, requires antecedent basis, and it is unclear where applicant has defined “a” treatment of NASH. Without antecedent basis, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the phrase, “the development of liver cirrhosis”, wherein the word, “the”, requires antecedent basis, and it is unclear where applicant has defined “a” development of liver cirrhosis. Without antecedent basis, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-8 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 3-8, the claims recite the phrase, “are defined in the same way as in Formula I”.
Such expression can be clarified by reciting -- are defined claim 1 --.
Regarding claims 13-15, the claims recite the phrase, “A compound”. Such expression can be clarified by reciting -- The compound --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The instant claims are drawn to a compound of instant formula (I), pharmaceutical composition thereof or a method of treatment via the compound thereof; and the presence of
PNG
media_image1.png
92
78
media_image1.png
Greyscale
group do not appear to have been disclosed previously in the prior arts. For at least this reason, the instant claims are substantially differentiated from any prior art reference, such as non-patent literature titled “Discovery of a Novel Potent and Selective HSD17B13 Inhibitor, BI-3231, a Well-Characterized Chemical Probe Available for Open Science”, hereinafter Thamm. Furthermore, the prior art provide insufficient guidance or motivation that would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the instantly claimed compounds.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 10-20 are rejected.
Claims 3-9 and 13-15 are objected.
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
Prosecution Insights