DETAILED ACTION
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 1-12 are pending.
Priority
This application is filed 09/26/2024, and claims the benefit of domestic priority as below:
PNG
media_image1.png
44
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Information Disclosure Statements
One IDS(s) received on 9/26/2024 has been considered unless marked with a strikethrough. The references which lack an English translation have been marked with a strikethrough because their contents could not be adequately reviewed.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 4, 9 and 10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
• Claim 2 is objected to because the term “such that” should be "wherein" for the clarification.
• Claim 4 is objected to because the term “ROS (reactive oxygen species)” should be "reactive oxygen species (ROS).
•
•
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The rejections under this section are made when the scope of the claimed subject matter is not clear. (See MPEP 2173)
Claims 3-7, 9, 10 and 12 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 claims 3 and 4, the phrase "wherein the compound of Formula (I) prevents” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Due to the dependency, it is not clear whether the compound of Formula (I) refer to all of the Formula (I), specific derivatives of the Formula (I), or TDMQ20. Dependent claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 are also lacks clarity for the same reason.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, the phrase "the compound of Formula (I) comprises acceptable
salts of the TDMQ series” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is not clear which salt is encompassed by the claims.
Claims 7 and 12 recite the limitation "acceptable salts of the TDMQ series" in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 7 and 12 depend from claims 1 and 2, respectively, which do not identify what is the “TDMQ series”. The dependent claims do not add a further limitation to the subject matter of independent claim.
Regarding claim 10, the phrases "highly cytotoxic", “several human cancer lines”, and “especially against” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. These phrases lack objective boundaries, and it is unclear how the recited in in vitro activity limits the claimed treatment method. Further, another view is that this claim has broad and narrow language such that one cannot determine what is required. Human cancer lines is broad, and the ‘especially against’ specific cell lines is narrow.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "wherein TDMQ20 is highly cytotoxic in vitro on several human cancer lines, especially against non-small cell lung carcinoma A549, cervix cancer HeLa cells, and
hepatocarcinoma HepG2” in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 depends from claim 6, which does not require TDMQ20 to be the compound administered in the claimed method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Enablement
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 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 the use of TDMQ20 to demonstrate cytotoxic, antiproliferative, and antimigratory activity in the specifically disclosed in vitro cancer cell assays, does not reasonably provide enablement for the use of compounds throughout the genus defined by Formula (I) to treat the full range of cancers and prevent metastasis as broadly claimed. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
To be enabling, the specification of the patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Explaining what is meant by “undue experimentation,” the Federal Circuit has stated:
The test is not merely quantitative, since a considerable amount of experimentation is permissible, if it is merely routine, or if the specification in question provides a reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed to enable the determination of how to practice a desired embodiment of the claimed invention. PPG v. Guardian, 75 F.3d 1558, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The factors that may be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation are set forth by In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (CAFC 1988) at 1404 where the court set forth the eight factors to consider when assessing if a disclosure would have required undue experimentation. Citing Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546 (BdApls 1986) at 547 the court recited eight factors:
1) the quantity of experimentation necessary,
2) the amount of direction or guidance provided,
3) the presence or absence of working examples,
4) the nature of the invention,
5) the state of the prior art,
6) the relative skill of those in the art,
7) the predictability of the art, and
8) the breadth of the claims.
These factors are always applied against the background understanding that scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability involved. In re Fisher, 57 CCPA 1099, 1108, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (1970). Keeping that in mind, the Wands factors are relevant to the instant fact situation for the following reasons:
The nature of the invention, and state and predictability of the art
The instant claims relate to methods of treating cancer and preventing metastasis in a mammal, including a human, by administrating the Formula (I) including TDMQ20, or as recited in certain dependent claims, a purported acceptable salt thereof. The claims involve compounds described as tetradentate monoquinoline copper chelators of the compounds as anticancer agents.
Gui et al. (New copper complexes inducing bimodal death through apoptosis and autophagy in A549 cancer cells., J. Inorg. Biochem., 213, 111260, pub’d 09/28/2020) discloses two closely related copper complexes (i.e., Cu1 and Cu2) and attributed their different biological behavior to difference in ligand methoxy substitution (abstract, Figure 1, and Anticancer mechanism of Cu1 and Cu2 section). The compounds are individually tested for cytotoxicity, mechanism, selectivity, and xenograft efficacy (Anticancer mechanism of Cu1 and Cu2 section). Thus, Gui teaches that relatively limited structural differences in copper related compounds may affect biological performance and mechanism of action (table 1, Fig 8, and In vivo anticancer activity section). In addition, Carcelli et al., (In vitro and in vivo anticancer activity of tridentate thiosemicarbazone copper complexes: Unravelling an unexplored pharmacological target., Eur. J. Med. Chem., 194, 112266, pub’d 03/24/2020) discloses the synthesis and testing of salicylaldehyde thiosemicarbazone copper(II) complexes and evaluated a series of differently substituted copper complexes across numerous cancer cell lines (HCT-15, LoVo and LoVo oxaliplatin resistant colon carcinoma, A375 melanoma, BxPC3 and PSN1 pancreatic adenocarcinoma, BCPAP thyroid carcinoma, 2008 ovarian carcinoma, HEK293 nontransformed embryonic kidney), 3D tumor spheroids, mechanistic assays, and preliminary animal studies (abstract, Results and discussion section). The results of Carcelli shows that anticancer activity and therapeutic suitability must be determined for particular compounds in particular tumor models rather a broad copper related chemical class (Results and discussion section). Accordingly, the teachings from Gui and Carcelli provide evidence that the anticancer activity of copper interacting compounds is structurally and biologically context dependent and cannot be predicted solely from the general ability of a compound to bind or chelate copper.
The instant specification presents in vitro cytotoxicity, inhibition of colony formation and cell migration, induction of apoptosis, increased ROS levels, and mitochondrial membrane depolarization as evidence of the anticancer activity of TDMQ20. However, the specification does not demonstrate in vivo antitumor efficacy, inhibition of metastasis in an animal model, or comparable activity across the full scope of the claimed Formula (I) compounds and cancer types that recited in claim 8. Moreover, the specification relies on an in vitro wound healing assay as evidence relating to the prevention of metastasis. However, this assay only demonstrates reduced cancer cell migration and does not directly establish prevention of metastasis in vivo across the full scope of the claimed Formula (I) compounds and cancer types for a human.
Thus, the nature of the invention, the teachings from Gui and Carcelli, and the limited predictability of anticancer therapy and prevention of metastasis weight against enablement because the specification does not provide a scientific or clinical framework sufficient the full scope of the therapeutic and cellular inhibition methods recited in claims 1-12, and using the claimed methods commensurate with their full scope would require undue experimentation.
The breadth of the claims
The claims are broad insofar as they recite a genus of compounds defined by formula (I), purported acceptable salts, multiple cancer types, and the distinct therapeutic results of treating cancer and preventing metastasis.
"Cancer" as a proliferative disease is not a single disease, or cluster of closely related disorders. There are hundreds of cancers, which have in common only some loss of controlled cell growth. Cancers are highly heterogeneous at both the molecular and clinical level, as seen, for example, in cancers of the breast, skin and lung. They can occur in nearly much every part of the body through different molecular mechanisms. The prior art recognized that there has never been a compound capable of treating cancers generally. "The cancer therapy art remains highly unpredictable, and no example exists for efficacy of a single product against tumors generally." (<https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/patent-examination-policy-mpep-staff-35-usc-112-1st-para-enablement#7f> ENABLEMENT DECISION TREE, Example F, situation 1). A similar statement appears at In re Application of Hozumi et al., 226 USPQ 353: "In spite of the vast expenditure of human and capital resources in recent years, no one drug has been found which is effective in treating all types of cancer. Cancer is not a simple disease, nor is it even a single disease, but a complex of a multitude of different entities, each behaving in a different way". There are compounds that treat a modest range of cancers, but no one has ever been able to figure out how to get a compound to be effective against cancer generally, or even a majority of cancers, but the art has not established a compound effective against cancer generally , or even a majority of cancer. Table 1 in the instant specification shows viability of several cell lines treated with TDMQ20 for 48 h, determined by the MTT assay, and a difference of more than two-fold in IC50 values is observed between human malignant melanoma cell lines (i.e., A375, or COLO-829) and lung cancer cell line (i.e., A549) (paragraph [0026]). This supports the broad scope of the claims, which encompass the question of whether the same compound can treat cancer in general.
The metastasis limitation is also broad. The specification demonstrates inhibition of HeLa-cell migration in a wound healing assay and states that the result suggests potential anti-migration or anti- metastatic activity. The instant specification also states that “The drastic decrease of the red/green fluorescence ratio while the concentration of TDMQ20 increased (Figure 5B) indicates the collapse of the mitochondrial transmembrane potential, suggesting a drastic alteration of mitochondria” (paragraph [0041]). It does not establish that the compound affects the additional biological stages required for metastatic dissemination and secondary tumor formation in vivo.
Accordingly, the breadth of a genus of compounds defined by Formula (I), purported acceptable salts, multiple cancer types, and the distinct therapeutic results of treating cancer and preventing metastasis exceeds the scope of the specification’s working examples and predictive guidance. Thus, A person of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation to determine which compounds within Formula (I) would be effective for treating particular cancers or preventing metastasis.
The amount of direction or guidance provided and the presence or absence of working examples
The specification provides some guidance and working examples for in vitro cytotoxicity, inhibition of colony formation and cell migration, induction of apoptosis, increased ROS levels, and mitochondrial membrane depolarization as evidence of the anticancer activity of TDMQ20 in mostly HeLa cells. However, the disclosure does not provide sufficient therapeutic guidance addressing the full claimed scope, because the current disclosure cannot sufficiently explain the full claimed therapeutic scope including in vivo antitumor efficacy, inhibition of metastasis in an animal model, comparable activity across the full scope of the claimed Formula (I) compounds and cancer types, or prevention of metastasis in vivo.
In view of Gui and Carcelli, the specification would need sufficient guidance connecting the disclosed TDMQ20 results to other compounds encompassed by Formula (I), the claimed salts, additional tumor types, and the claimed in vivo therapeutic outcomes. In particular, the specification does not provide 1) a predictive structure activity relationship for the Formula (I) genus; 2) criteria for selecting cancers having a therapeutically relevant copper dependence; 3) representative evidence that the claimed Formula (I) treats the recited cancer/tumors and prevents metastasis, rather than only TDMQ20; 4) a demonstrated correlation between the HeLa wound healing assay and prevention of metastatic tumor in vivo; and 5) a demonstrated therapeutic effectiveness to mammal, specifically human, across the claimed scope.
These absents are significant because compound specific, and tumor context specific activity taught by Gui and Carcelli, while the specification provides no alternative predictive framework that would permit a skilled artisan to extrapolation the limited disclosed results across the full claims.
Accordingly, although the specification contains working examples relating to TDMQ20 and certain in vitro assays, it lacks sufficient therapeutic direction and representative working examples commensurate with the full scope of the claimed methods.
The quantity of experimentation necessary
Given the limited predictability of treating cancer and preventing metastasis, the breadth of claims, and the absence of sufficient guidance or representative working examples commensurate with the full scope of those claims, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be required to engage in extensive experimentations to engage in extensive screening and validation to practice the claimed methods across the full scope. Such experimentation would include evaluate individual Formula (I) compounds and salts for cellular activity, selectivity, pharmacokinetics, metabolic stability, toxicity, tolerated exposure, and tumor penetration.
Furthermore, experiments will be required to determine which cancer types, molecular subtypes, or tumor models exhibit sensitivity to each compound of Formula (I), and whether the observed sensitivity is linked to copper dependency or other mechanisms of action. In the absence of additional predictive guidance, demonstrated efficacy in cancer types or cell lines with defined molecular characteristics is insufficient to establish efficacy against unrelated tumors. For the claimed metastasis prevention methods will also be required additional experiments including transwell migration and matrigel invasion assays, spontaneous metastasis animal model demonstrating a reduction in metastatic burden at distant organs to recited cancers.
In view of the unpredictability, therapeutic efficacy and metastasis prevention efficacy could not reasonably be extrapolated from the limited in vitro results to the full scope of the claimed methods. Therefore, practicing the full scope of claims 1-12 would require substantial additional screening and validation to determine which compounds of Formula (I) are effective, in which cancer or cancer subtypes and under what treatment conditions across the claimed therapeutic indications.
Accordingly, the instant claims 1-12 do not comply with the enablement requirement of §112, because practicing the claimed invention would require undue experimentation by a person of ordinary skill in the art without reasonable assurance of success.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-12 have been rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) and 35 USC 112 (b), as discussed above. This rejection under 35 USC 103 is a separate rejection based on an interpretation of the claims, in light of the specification, according to the apparent intended meaning of the claim language.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et. al. (Preparation of Tetradentate Copper Chelators as Potential Anti-Alzheimer Agents., ChemMedChem., 13(7), 684-704, pub'd 02/23/2018, IDS cited), in view of Pan et al. (Copper deficiency induced by tetrathiomolybdate suppresses tumor growth and angiogenesis. Cancer Res., 62(17), 4854-9, pub'd 09/01/2002, IDS cited), and further in view of Ramchandani et al. (Copper depletion modulates mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation to impair triple negative breast cancer metastasis., Nat. Commun., 12(1), 7311, pub'd 12/15/2021).
With respect to independent claim 1, the claim recites that a method of treating cancer and preventing metastasis, comprising the administration of an effective amount of a compound of Formula (I).
Zhang teaches a series of tetradentate copper chelating compounds, including the compounds disclosed in table 1(b)-(d).
Zhang fails to teach administering the Formula (I) for treating cancer and preventing metastasis.
Pan teaches administering the copper chelator tetrathiomolybdate (TM) to mammalian breast cancer models and reports that copper depletion significantly suppresses tumor growth and angiogenesis (abstract). Thus, Pan supports that administration of a copper chelator provides the therapeutic advantages of reducing biologically available copper, suppressing tumor growth, and inhibiting angiogenesis required for continued tumor progression (abstract, TM Decreases Proangiogenic Mediators and Inhibits in Vitro Angiogenesis, and TM Suppresses NFkB Protein Levels and Transcription section).
The combined teachings of Zhang and Pan fail to teach that copper depletion reduces cancer cell invasion or metastatic progression.
Ramchandani teaches that copper depletion using tetrathiomolybdate reduces mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation and impairs metastatic progression in triple negative breast cancer (abstract, Copper depletion disrupts respiration in SOX2/OCT4-GFP reporter positive cells, and Copper depletion activates AMPK to inhibit mTORC1 signaling section). Ramchandani further teaches that copper depletion reduces cancer cell invasion and lung metastasis, thereby providing the additional advantage of inhibiting the metabolic and invasive characteristics required for metastatic dissemination (Copper depletion activates AMPK to inhibit mTORC1 signaling, and discussion section).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention to use Zhang’s TDMQ chelators as an alternative copper depleting agent in the cancer treatment methods taught by Pan and Ramchandani. Pan explains that the administration of copper chelators inhibits mammary tumor growth and angiogenesis in mammals, and Ramchandani describes copper deficiency offers the additional benefit of reducing cancer cell invasion, pulmonary metastasis, and metastatic spread by impairing copper-dependent mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to combine these teachings with the reasonable expectation that Zhang’s TDMQ chelating agent would retain its known copper-binding function when used in the disclosed cancer treatment method, thereby achieving the predictable benefits of selectively reducing bioavailability of copper, inhibiting copper-dependent tumor growth and angiogenesis, and suppressing invasion and metastasis.
The references is directed to the same field of endeavor and address related to the application. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham.
Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applying KSR example rationale (A) and (B) in the independent claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine Zhang’s known copper selective TDMQ chelating agent in the copper depletion cancer treatment methods taught by Pan and Ramchandani. This is because the combination changes involved using known alternative copper chelating agents to achieve the predictable outcomes results of selectively reducing copper bioavailability and inhibiting copper-dependent tumor growth, angiogenesis, invasion, and metastasis taught by Pan and Ramchandani. (see MPEP 2141)
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites that the compound of Formula (I) is TDMQ20.
Zhang teaches TDMQ20 and evaluates TDQM20’s biological properties (scheme 2, Metal chelation by TDMQ ligands, and Affinity of TDMQ ligands for CuII section).
With respect to claims 3 and 11, the claims recite that compound of Formula (I) prevents proliferation or migration of a cancer cell.
Pan teaches that administration of a copper chelator significantly suppresses breast tumor growth. Therefore, Pan teaches inhibition of the proliferation of a cancer cell, as required in claims 3 and 11. (abstract, TM Decreases Proangiogenic Mediators and Inhibits in Vitro Angiogenesis, and TM Suppresses NFkB Protein Levels and Transcription section).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, the claims recite that the cancer cell is in a mammal/a human.
Pan teaches systemic treatment with TM Inhibits tumor growth and angiogenesis in mammalian breast cancer models, including mice bearing SUM149 human breast cancer Xenografts, and reports suppression of tumor growth and antiangiogenic action of TM in vivo (Results and Discussion). Accordingly, Pan teaches cancer cells present in a mammal.
Pan does not directly teach the mammal is a human, however, Pan teaches to evaluate copper depletion using a human inflammatory breast cancer xenograft model. In addition, Ramchandani discusses the use of TM in connection with high risk triple negative breast cancer patients and investigates the mechanism underlying its antimetastatic effect (results section). These teachings would provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with reason to apply copper chelation treatment to a human cancer patient, with a reasonable expectation of suppressing copper dependent tumor growth and metastatic progression.
Therefore, claims 5 and 6 would have been obvious for the reasons stated above with respect to claims 1.
With respect to claims 7 and 12, the claim recites that the compound of Formula (I) comprises acceptable salts of the TDMQ series.
Zhang teaches metal salts and HCl salts of the compound of Formula (I) for their stability and biological evaluation(Synthesis and characterization of TDMQ ligands section).
With respect to claim 8, the claims recite that the cancer is one of malignant tumors, malignant melanoma, lung cancer, breast cancer, cervix cancer, colon cancer, cutaneous melanoma, cutaneous squamous carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, osteosarcoma, prostate cancer, and uveal
melanoma, specifically, comprising treating or preventing lung cancer, cervix cancer,
hepatocarcinoma carcinoma, and malignant melanoma.
Pan teaches treatment of breast cancer by administering a copper chelator and reports suppression of tumor growth and angiogenesis in mammalian breast cancer models (abstract).
Conclusion
Claims 1-12 are rejected.
Claims 2, 4, 9 and 10 are objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEONG JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6918. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm.
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 A. 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.
/SEONG JONG KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1621
/CLINTON A BROOKS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights