Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 2-4 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 5-16 are pending. Applicants’ amendment has necessitated new ground of rejection. Accordingly, this Action is FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 4/6/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn rejections
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 7/6/26 and 7/7/26 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn. Claims 1-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejection. Claims 1-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (WO2020246581) in view of CN1257077A and Thiemann et al. (Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 26, 291 (1997): 44 pages). Applicants have amended the claims to remove the sitosterol taught by Endo et al. as a compound of Formula (1).
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites various structures where R102 is H (formulas A-D) and not represented by “C(O)NR104R105” as required by claim 1. Consequently, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Correction is required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (WO2020246581; of record) in view of Heidebrecht et al. (US20170325457).
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant claims, for example form claim 1 (in part):
PNG
media_image1.png
878
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
296
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
380
1132
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(MPEP 2141.03)
MPEP 2141.03 (I) states: “The “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). The level of skill is high and that of a lipid-nucleic acid transfection research scientist who possesses specialized knowledge in designing cationic lipid formulations to package genetic material (DNA/RNA) into liposomes or nanoparticles. The ordinary artisan has expertise in the assembling lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), liposomes, or lipoplexes, including optimizing the ratio of cationic lipids, ionizable lipids, and helper lipids (e.g., cholesterol) to protect RNA/DNA from degradation. The ordinary artisan will draw conventional ideas from lipid-nucleic acid transfection formulation compositions, components and methods— without being told to do so.
In addition, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level (MPEP 2141.03(II)).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1 and 6-16, Endo et al. teach in the Abstract a lipid composition for delivery of a nucleic acid in the form of particles (Description paragraphs 3-4):
PNG
media_image4.png
584
1048
media_image4.png
Greyscale
See also the claims of Endo et al. where the nonionic lipid is a sterol, the zwitterionic lipid is a phospholipid and the lipid having a nonionic hydrophilic polymer structure is a lipid having a polyethyelene glycol structure.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Endo et al. teach in the claims: The nonionic lipid (sterol) is present from 20-60 mol%. Endo et al. teach that: “As the nonionic lipid, sterols are preferable. By including sterols in the oil phase, the membrane fluidity can be lowered and the effect of stabilizing lipid particles can be obtained. The sterols are not particularly limited, but are cholesterol, phytosterol (c[s]itosterol[sic]), stigmasterol, fucosterol, spinasterol, brassicasterol, etc.), ergosterol, cholestanol, cholestenone, coprostanol, cholesteryl-2'-hydroxyethyl. Examples include ether, cholesteryl-4'-hydroxybutyl ether and the like. Of these, cholesterol is preferred. In the lipid composition of the present invention, the content of the nonionic lipid with respect to the total lipid is more preferably 20 mol% to 60 mol%, more preferably 25 mol% to 60 mol%, and 25 mol. It is more preferably% to 55 mol%, and particularly preferably 25 mol% to 50 mol%.” (Specification Nonionic lipid). Sitosterol has the structure when R102 is H and R101 is
PNG
media_image5.png
172
272
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Endo et al. teach in the claims: The lipid of Formula (1) is present greater than 40 mol% and 90 mol% or less.
Regarding claims 1 and 8-10, Endo et al. teach in the claims: “There can be from 0-30 mol% bionic lipid and zwitterionic (bionic) phospholipids “In the lipid composition of the present invention, the content of the zwitterionic lipid with respect to the total lipid is preferably 0 mol% to 30 mol%, more preferably 0 mol% to 20 mol%, and 0 mol. It is more preferably% to 15 mol%. When the lipid composition of the present invention contains a zwitterionic lipid, the lower limit of the content of the zwitterionic lipid with respect to the total lipid is not particularly limited, but is generally 0.5 mol% or more. It is preferably 1 mol% or more, and more preferably 2 mol% or more.” (Specification Zwitterionic lipids).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Endo et al. teach: “The lipid having a nonionic hydrophilic polymer is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include PEG-modified phosphoethanolamine, diacylglycerol PEG derivative, dialkylglycerol PEG derivative, cholesterol PEG derivative, and ceramide PEG derivative. Among these, diacylglycerol PEG is preferable. That is, the lipid having a polyethylene glycol structure is preferably a lipid having a diacylglycerol structure and a polyethylene glycol structure. The acyl group of the diacylglycerol moiety is more preferably an acyl group having 12 to 22 carbon atoms.” (Specification Lipid having a nonionic hydrophilic polymer structure).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Endo et al. teach in the claims: The nonionic hydrophilic polymer lipid is present from 0.5-10 mol%.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Endo et al. teach in the claims: The lipid composition according to any one of claims 1 to 9, wherein the content of nucleic acid with respect to total lipid is 1 to 25% by mass. Thus, at the low end of 1% nucleic acid there is 99% lipids for a weight ratio of 99:1, which is within the range of 5-100.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, Endo et al. teach in the claims: The lipid composition according to any one of claims 1 to 10, further comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. The lipid composition according to any one of claims 1 to 11, which is a composition for introducing nucleic acid into cells. The lipid composition according to any one of claims 1 to 11, which is a composition for nucleic acid delivery in vivo.
Regarding overlapping ranges, MPEP 2144.05(I) states: 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).
Regarding claim 1, Heidebrecht et al. teach formulations for the delivery of active agents (Title; Abstract) and teach that: “Numerous auxiliary compounds have been employed in lipid- and lipidoid-based formulations of poly- or oligonucleotides to assist in their delivery to mammals and mammalian cellular systems. Some of these compounds, such as cholesterol, facilitate delivery of the poly- or oligonucleotide into the target mammalian cell by packing inside the lipid/lipioid bilayer of the formulation [0003]. Heidebrecht et al. teach that the active agent includes nucleic acids [0130-0153] and the complexing agent associates with the active agent [0127-0128]. Heidebrecht et al. teach a formulation comprising:
At least one formulation transport agent of formula A-B-C;
At least one complexing agent; and
An active agent; where component “C” of the formulation transport agent is non-covalently associated to the at least one complexing agent (Claims 1-2).
Heidebrecht et al. teach in claim 15 that the structure of the formulation transport agent can be:
PNG
media_image6.png
404
1056
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
420
1082
media_image7.png
Greyscale
See also claims 10-14 where claim 10 teaches the substituents:
PNG
media_image8.png
134
516
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Thus, in compound 3 the R groups are ethyl and in compound 5 the R groups are -CH2CH2-OH. Consequently, because R can be -H, -CH3, -CH2CH3 or -CH2CH2-OH, then at least compound 5 reads on a compound where R104 is H, R105 is a substituted C2 hydrocarbon with NR110R111 with R110 = R111 and is a C2 hydrocarbon substituted with OH.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02) and Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
The difference between the instant application and Endo et al. is that Endo et al. do not expressly teach all the claimed compounds of Formula (1) where R101 is:
PNG
media_image9.png
234
279
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and;
R102 = C(O)NRR’. This deficiency in Endo et al. is cured by the teachings of Heidebrecht et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lipid composition of Endo et al. with compounds of Formula (1), as suggested by Heidebrecht et al., and produce the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because Endo et al. is not limited to the cholesterol derivatives taught and suggests “and the like” sterol compounds. Heidebrecht et al. provide carbamate sterol derivatives that fall within the claimed scope. It would then be obvious to try those alternative sterol derivatives and any enantiomers of Heidebrecht et al. in the lipid composition of Endo et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Especially when the carbamate sterol derivatives of Heidebrecht et al. are intended for the same purpose of nucleic acid delivery. The sterol derivatives of Heidebrecht et al. have the same function as those of Endo et al. “Where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious." In re Fout 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982).
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the combined teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the combined references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments:
Applicants’ arguments filed on 7/6/26 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments are directed to a withdrawn rejection. The combined references render obvious the compound of formula (1). Respectfully, the claims remain rejected at this time. Please note that a structure search for the species of (E), (F), (G) and (M) of claim 5 did not uncover prior art related to nucleic acid formulation.
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 and 5-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12508226 in view of Heidebrecht et al. (US20170325457). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent is also directed to a lipid composition as described in claim 1 (in part shown below) for in vivo delivery of nucleic acids (Claims 12-13), which implicitly means introducing a nucleic acid into a cell:
PNG
media_image10.png
552
502
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The patent teaches the genus of sterols for the nonionic lipid (Claim 2) and phospholipids for the non-ionic lipid (Claim 4). The scope of sterols includes: “The sterols are not particularly limited, and examples thereof include cholesterol, phytosterol (sitosterol, stigmasterol, fucosterol, spinasterol, brassicasterol and the like), ergosterol, cholestanone, cholestenone, coprostanol, cholesteryl-2'-hydroxy ethyl ether, cholesteryl-4'-hydroxybutyl ether, and the like.” (Column 30, lines 19-24). See MPEP 804: “The portion of the specification of the reference that describes subject matter that falls within the scope of a reference claim may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of that claim.”
The patent teaches that a compound of Formula (1) is present from more than 40 mol% and less than 90 mol% and the nonionic lipid (sterols) is present from 20 to 60 mol% and the nonionic hydrophilic polymer content is 0.5 to 10 mol% and the zwitterionic lipid is 0 to 30 mol% (Claim 7). The lipid composition of the patent is implicitly a particle. The scope chain length of the non-ionic hydrophilic polymer acyl group is 12 to 22 carbon atoms (Column 30, lines 55-65). Regarding overlapping ranges, MPEP 2144.05(I) states: 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).
The patent does not expressly teach a compound of Formula (1) as claimed in claim 1. However, the term “or the like” would cover sterol derivatives such as those claimed and the art of Heidebrecht et al. teaches sterol derivatives within the scope of claim 1 as shown in compounds 3 and 5 of claim 15 for the same purpose.
The patent does not expressly teach the weight ratio of lipids to the nucleic acid is 5 to 100. However, the patent does teach 1-25% by mass nucleic acids (Claim 10) and it is then routine optimization to obtain a weight ratio of lipids to the nucleic acid of 5 to 100.
Accordingly, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patented subject matter.
Claims 1 and 5-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12285525 in view of Heidebrecht et al. (US20170325457). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent is also directed to:
PNG
media_image11.png
236
1108
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Where a compound of Formula (1) is described as:
PNG
media_image12.png
458
558
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(Claims 1-17).
The scope of sterol is taught to be: “The sterol is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include cholesterol, phytosterol (sitosterol, stigmasterol, fucosterol, spinasterol, brassicasterol), ergosterol, cholestanone, cholestenone, coprostanol, cholesteryl-2'-hydroxyethyl ether, cholesteryl-4'-hydroxybutyl ether, and the like.” (Column 59, line 64 through line 2 of column 60). See MPEP 804: “The portion of the specification of the reference that describes subject matter that falls within the scope of a reference claim may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of that claim
The patent does not expressly teach a compound of Formula (1) as claimed in claim 1. However, the term “or the like” would cover sterol derivatives such as those claimed and the art of Heidebrecht et al. teaches sterol derivatives within the scope of claim 1 as shown in compounds 3 and 5 of claim 15 for the same purpose.
The patent does not expressly teach the amount of each component in the composition or the weight ratio of lipids to the nucleic acid is 5 to 100. However, it is merely routine optimization by the ordinary artisan to determine the amount of each component relative to the other components and arrive at the claimed subject matter.
The patent does not expressly teach the chain length on the hydrophilic polymer. However, the scope of the hydrophilic polymer includes diacylglycerol-PEG derivatives. It is then merely judicious selection of an acyl chain length of 8-26 carbon atoms by the ordinary artisan. In fact, an example within the scope of the claim is 1,2-dimyristoyl-rac-glycero-3-(methylpolyoxyethylene 2000) (hereinafter, called DMG-PEG2000) (Column 261, lines 55-60), where 14 carbon atoms are provided by the myristic chain.
The patent does not expressly teach introducing a nucleic acid into a cell/in vivo delivery of a nucleic acid. However, those are intended uses of the composition and implicit in the patented composition.
Accordingly, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patented subject matter.
Claims 1 and 5-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12370143 in view of Heidebrecht et al. (US20170325457). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent is also directed to:
PNG
media_image13.png
112
502
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
188
490
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
192
514
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
116
512
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The scope of sterol is taught to be: “The sterol is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include cholesterol, phytosterol (sitosterol, stigmasterol, fucosterol, spinasterol, brassicasterol), ergosterol, cholestanone, cholestenone, coprostanol, cholesteryl-2'-hydroxyethyl ether, cholesteryl-4'-hydroxybutyl ether, and the like.” (Column 36, lines 44-49). See MPEP 804: “The portion of the specification of the reference that describes subject matter that falls within the scope of a reference claim may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of that claim.”
The patent does not expressly teach a compound of Formula (1) as claimed in claim 1. However, the term “or the like” would cover sterol derivatives such as those claimed and the art of Heidebrecht et al. teaches sterol derivatives within the scope of claim 1 as shown in compounds 3 and 5 of claim 15 for the same purpose.
The patent does not expressly teach the amount of each component in the composition or the weight ratio of lipids to the nucleic acid is 5 to 100. However, it is merely routine optimization by the ordinary artisan to determine the amount of each component relative to the other components and arrive at the claimed subject matter.
The patent does not expressly teach the chain length on the hydrophilic polymer. However, the scope of the hydrophilic polymer includes 1,2-dimyristoyl-rac-glycero-3-(methylpolyoxyethylene 2000) (hereinafter, called DMG-PEG2000) (Column 213, lines 20-25), where 14 carbon atoms are provided by the myristic chain.
The patent does not expressly teach introducing a nucleic acid into a cell/in vivo delivery of a nucleic acid. However, those are intended uses of the composition and implicit in the patented composition.
Accordingly, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patented subject matter.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant asserts that the lipid composition as amended is not an obvious variant of any lipid composition disclosed in the claims of the patents. Respectfully, the Examiner has a different perspective because species of the compound of formula (1) are known in the art through the teachings of Heidebrecht et al. for the same purpose of as applied in the patents. “Where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious." In re Fout 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982). The test for obviousness is "what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 4I3, 425 (CCPA I98I) (MPEP 2145(III)). At this time, no arguments to unexpected results have been made nor is any other factor indicating non-obviousness shown to exist. Consequently, the patented subject matter remains obvious in view of the teachings of Heidebrecht et al.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicants’ 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 ERNST V ARNOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8509. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3:30.
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, Brian Y Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/ERNST V ARNOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights