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 .
This is the first Office action on the merits of the claims.
All citations to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) refer to Revision 01.2024, which was released in November 2024.
Status of the Claims
In the Preliminary Amendment filed 25 September 2025, Applicant cancelled claim 1 and added thirty new claims, i.e., claims 2-31. Claims 2-31 are pending.
Objection to the Specification
The title of the invention (“Pharmaceutical Compositions”) is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP § 606.01. The following title is suggested: “Method of treating IgA nephropathy.”
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
Claims 2-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the following limitation is unclear: “one or more excipients that substantially prevent release of the budesonide until the ileum region of the small intestine is reached.” Emphasis added. The adverb <substantially> is a relative term that generates significant uncertainty. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(D). Where is the boundary between substantial and unsubstantial? MPEP § 2173.04 (“a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim)”). The definition of “substantially released to the ileum region” set forth on page 39 of the specification is considered informative, even though it concerns substantial release, rather than substantial prevention of release. Nevertheless, that definition fails to clarify claim 2 because it includes a series of exemplary concentration ranges that progressively narrow in scope. See MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I) (“Use of a narrow numerical range that falls within a broader range in the same claim may render the claim indefinite when the boundaries of the claim are not discernible.”) and MPEP § 2173.05(d) (“In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made.”). Therefore, claim 2 and all claims depending thereon are indefinite.
Regarding claim 24, the following limitation is unclear: “a low molecular weight hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose (HPMC).” Emphasis added. The adjective <low> is a term of degree that generates significant uncertainty. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(I). Where is the boundary between (i) low molecular weights and (ii) molecular weights that are not low? MPEP § 2173.04 (“a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim)”). Furthermore, there is no definition for either “low” or “low molecular weight” in the specification of the present application, as originally filed. See, e.g., page 48 at para. [0253]. Consequently, the specification does not provide a standard for measuring or otherwise clarifying the adjective <low>.
Regarding claim 31, there is no antecedent basis for the following limitation: “the tablet composition.” MPEP § 2173.05(e) (lack of antecedent basis).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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(a) 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 2-9 and 14-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellstrom (“Targeted-release budesonide versus placebo in patients with IgA nephropathy (NEFIGAN): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial.” The Lancet 389.10084 (2017): 2117-2127) in view of Calliditas Therapeutics (“Pharmalink’s core patents for Nefecon® treatment for renal disease granted in United States, Europe, China and Hong Kong.” 2014 July 10. [Press Release]), Watts (US 8,491,932 B2), and Villa (US 9,192,581 B2).
Fellstrom is directed to: “Targeted-release budesonide versus placebo in patients with IgA nephropathy (NEFIGAN): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial.” Title.
Fellstrom discloses that “[p]rimary IgA nephropathy is the most prevalent chronic glomerular disease worldwide, with patients often diagnosed as young adults.” Page 2117, left column.
Fellstrom discloses: “A novel, oral, targeted-release formulation of the glucocorticosteroid budesonide (TRF-budesonide; Nefecon [Pharmalink AB, Stockholm, Sweden]) was developed to release the drug in the distal ileum, which has a high density of Peyer’s patches.” Page 2118, left column.
Fellstrom discloses: “Trial medication was an oral capsule formulation of TRF-budesonide (Nefecon) or placebo, designed to provide sustained release of active compound that was delayed until the capsule reached the distal ileum, targeting the site with a high density of Peyer’s patches.” (Emphasis added) Page 2119, right column. “The safety profile of TRF-budesonide was anticipated to be superior to high dose systemic corticosteroids because of its extensive first-pass metabolism—less than 10% of budesonide enters systemic circulation.” (Emphasis added) Page 2118 at sentence bridging left/right columns.
Fellstrom discloses: “Patients were stratified according to their baseline UPCR (≤0·9 g/g and >0·9 g/g) at month 0 (baseline). We randomly allocated patients to treatment groups using a computer algorithm method of permuted blocks. Within each block, patients were allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to 16 mg/day TRF-budesonide, 8 mg/day TRF-budesonide, or placebo.” (Emphasis added) Page 2119, left column.
Fellstrom discloses: “To ensure masking, placebo capsules provided by the sponsor had the same appearance and route of administration as the active capsules. Patients self-administered masked capsules, once daily, 1 h before breakfast during the treatment phase. During follow-up (months 9–12), patients who received 16 mg/day TRF-budesonide during months 0–9 were tapered to 8 mg/day for 2 weeks while all other patients (ie, those who received TRF-budesonide 8 mg/day or placebo during months 0–9) received placebo to maintain masking. No further trial medication was administered after tapering.” (Emphasis added) Page 2119 at paragraph bridging left/right columns.
Fellstrom discloses: “This trial showed that 9 months’ treatment with TRF-budesonide resulted in reduced proteinuria and stabilised eGFR in patients with IgA nephropathy at risk of progression to end-stage renal disease. The observed effect was additive to optimised RAS blockade and supports the use of TRF-budesonide as adjunct therapy in patients with IgA nephropathy with persistent proteinuria. TRF-budesonide has the potential to become the first disease-specific treatment for IgA nephropathy, with a risk-benefit profile supportive of its use early in the course of disease.” Page 2126, right column. “At 9 months, mean UPCR [urine protein creatinine ratio] had decreased by 27.3% in 48 patients who received 16 mg/day (0.71; 0.53–0.94; p=0.0092) and 21.5% in the 51 patients who received 8 mg/day (0.76; 0.58–1.01; p=0.0290); 50 patients who received placebo had an increase in mean UPCR of 2.7%.” (Emphasis added) Abstract.
Although Fellstrom discloses that TRF-budesonide (Nefecon®) provides sustained release of active compound that is delayed until the capsule reaches the distal ileum (page 2118), Fellstrom is silent as to whether Nefecon® can be formulated as a tablet, rather than a capsule. Consequently, Fellstrom does not satisfy claim 2 of the present application. As explained below, the following two references — in combination — compensate for this deficiency: Calliditas Therapeutics and Watts.
Calliditas Therapeutics is a press release directed to the core patents for Nefecon®.
Calliditas Therapeutics teaches: “Nefecon is a potential disease-modifying treatment for patients with primary lgA nephropathy at risk of developing end-stage renal disease.” Page 1.
Calliditas Therapeutics teaches: “The patents issued in the US (US 8,491,932), Europe (EP 2278958) China (200980127272.5) and Hong Kong (1158510) provide protection around the formulation of Nefecon and its use as a treatment of glomerulonephritis, including IgA nephropathy, the most common form of primary glomerulonephritis and a cause of end-stage renal disease.” (Emphasis added) Page 1.
Watts, which is US 8,491,932, is directed to compositions for the oral delivery of corticosteroids.
Watts teaches: “For glomerulonephritis, a suitable profile would be for significant drug release to begin in the ileum and to continue for from about 2 to 6 hours or so that drug release occurs predominately in the lower third of the small intestine and the upper quarter of the large intestine.” (Emphasis added) Column 3, lines 43-48.
In Example 2 (column 11), Watts teaches an enterically-coated capsule containing the sustained-release budesonide beads of Example 1. More specifically, section (b) of Example 2 teaches that the capsule is coated with a solution comprising Eudragit® L100 copolymer and Eudragit® S100 copolymer (Degussa, Darmstadt, Germany). Column 11, lines 52-56. Those are enteric (gastroresistant) copolymers. Column 9, lines 20-25; column 8, 62-68; and column 1, lines 41-44. The enterically-coated capsules of Example 2 “are suitable for use in the treatment of glomerulonephritis.” (Emphasis added) Column 12, lines 1-2.
Watts additionally teaches: “Tablets may be prepared by compressing a blend of individual ingredients or by compressing granules or a blend of granules comprising some of the ingredients. Typical inert ingredients used in tablets include, but are not limited to, diluents such as lactose, microcrystalline cellulose, dextrose, dextrin, starches and dibasic calcium phosphate; binders such as povidone, pregelatinised starch and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose; glidants such as talc and silicon dioxide; lubricants such as hydrogenated vegetable oil and stearic acid and its salts.” (Emphasis added) Column 6, lines 9-19.
The examiner notes that a person having ordinary skill in the art, following a review of Watts, would have readily envisaged formulating a budesonide tablet for the treatment of glomerulonephritis that comprises the ileum-targeting enteric coating of Example 2. MPEP § 2131.02(III) (“A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.”), quoting Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Villa is directed to an enterically-coated budesonide tablet, which is referred to therein as budesonide-MMXTM. Column 19 at claim 1; see also column 7, lines 61-65, and column 12, lines 65-67.
Villa teaches how to manufacture a tablet core that comprises budesonide. Column 13, lines 10-54 (Examples 1-2); see also column 4, lines 65-67 (discussing compression).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the teachings of Calliditas Therapeutics, Watts, and Villa would have motivated a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fellstrom by (i) formulating a tablet comprising the budesonide core of Examples 1-2 of Villa and the ileum-targeting enteric coating of Example 2 of Watts and, thereafter, (ii) orally administering the resulting enterically-coated budesonide tablet to a patient suffering from IgA nephropathy. This modification would have been made with a reasonable of success, especially considering that (1) the enteric coating of Watts is formulated specifically for the treatment of glomerulonephritis and (2) primary IgA nephropathy is the most prevalent chronic glomerular disease worldwide, as disclosed on page 2117 of Fellstrom. Therefore, claims 2, 3, and 6 are prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143.02(I) (“Where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success.”).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Villa teaches that the enteric coating is 11.8 wt% of the total budesonide tablet (40 mg/340 mg). Column 13 at Example 2.
Regarding claims 7-9, Villa teaches that the lubricant (magnesium stearate) is 0.88 wt% of the total budesonide tablet (3 mg/340 mg). Column 13 at Example 2.
Regarding claim 14, Villa teaches the core of the budesonide tablet is wet granulated. Column 13, lines 15-20 (Example 1).
Regarding claims 15-18, Villa teaches that the fillers (microcrystalline cellulose and lactose monohydrate) are 61 wt% of the total budesonide tablet ((156+50 mg)/340 mg). Column 13 at Example 2; see also MPEP § 2144.05(I) (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”) and (“Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.”).
Regarding claims 19-22, Villa teaches that the binder (low viscosity hydroxypropyl cellulose) is 17.6 wt% of the total budesonide tablet (60 mg/340 mg). Column 13 at Examples 1 and 2; see also MPEP § 2144.05(I) (“a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”).
Regarding claims 23-28, Villa also identifies the low viscosity hydroxypropyl cellulose, which is discussed in the paragraph immediately above, as a “hydrophilic matrix forming material” (column 13, lines 23-25) that yields a hydrogel (column 4, lines 42-51). See also column 19 at claim 11 (“wherein said extended release core incorporates budesonide-containing granules in a hydrogel composition, said hydrogel composition comprising hydroxypropylcellulose”). In regard to claim 24, Villa teaches, in Example 4, that hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) can be selected as the hydrophilic excipient for the core of the budesonide tablet. Column 14, lines 52-59. In the absence of any indication to the contrary, a person having ordinary skill in the art — following a review of Examples 1-4 of Villa — would have inferred that the HPMC of Example 4 is preferably a low-viscosity grade (low molecular weight), given that a low-viscosity grade of HPC (hydroxypropyl cellulose) is selected in Examples 1-2. MPEP § 2144.01 (“‘[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.’”). In further regard to claims 27-28, Villa teaches that the core of the budesonide tablet comprises lactose monohydrate, which is a water-soluble filler. Column 13 at Example 2.
Regarding claims 29-30, Watts teaches that each oral unit dosage form of Example 2 comprises 4 mg of budesonide. Column 11, lines 48-50.
Regarding claim 31, Applicant is referred to Watts at column 3, lines 60-66, where the desired release profile for treatment of glomerulonephritis is set forth.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellstrom in view of Calliditas Therapeutics, Watts and Villa, as applied above to claims 2-9 and 14-31, and further in view of Gareb (“Development of novel zero-order release budesonide tablets for the treatment of ileo-colonic inflammatory bowel disease and comparison with formulations currently used in clinical practice.” Int’l Journal of Pharmaceutics 554 (2019): 366-375).
Fellstrom and the secondary references (Calliditas Therapeutics, Watts, and Villa) are silent as to whether the ileum-targeted enteric budesonide tablet can further comprise a disintegrant and, consequently, do not satisfy claims 10-13. As explained below, Gareb compensates for this deficiency.
Gareb is directed to the “[d]evelopment of novel zero-order release budesonide tablets for the treatment of ileo-colonic inflammatory bowel disease and comparison with formulations currently used in clinical practice.” Title.
Gareb teaches: “Tablet cores were coated with the ColoPulse coating. The coating suspension consisted of Eudragit S100/PEG 6000/CS/talc in a ratio of 7/1/3/2 (w/w) in a solvent mixture of acetone/water 97/3 (v/v).” Page 368 (underline/bold added for emphasis). The examiner notes that “CS” is the abbreviation for the disintegrant croscarmellose sodium. Page 366 at bottom.
Gareb teaches: “Based on in vitro data, the novel ColoPulse 3 mg and 9 mg budesonide formulations had similar release profiles. The tablets started to release budesonide in the simulated ileum and release rate was constant throughout the entire simulated colon until drug release was complete. Furthermore, the formulations were shown to be stable. The in vitro results indicate that the oral budesonide formulations currently used in clinical practice were not optimally suited for the treatment of ileo-colonic IBD. The developed formulations are interesting treatment options for ileo-colonic IBD.” (Emphasis added) Page 373.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the teachings of Gareb would have motivated a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fellstrom and the secondary references (Calliditas Therapeutics, Watts, and Villa) by selecting ColoPulse as the enteric coating for the budesonide tablet cores and, thereafter, administering that formulation to a patient suffering from IgA nephropathy. That modification would have been made in an effort to develop a better treatment option for IgA nephropathy, which — like IBD — requires effective ileo-colonic targeting of the budesonide for successful therapy. Therefore, claims 10 and 11 are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Table 3 of Gareb teaches that sufficient ColoPulse was applied to the budesonide tablet cores to yield an enteric coating of 5 mg/cm2. Page 369. Applicant is additionally referred to Example 2 of Villa (column 13), which teaches that the enteric coating is 11.8 wt% of the total budesonide tablet (40 mg/340 mg). Applicant is alerted that “‘[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A), quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting (Non-Statutory)
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 obviousness-type 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR1.321(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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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 eTerminalDisclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/ eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-31 of co-pending Application No. 19/194,972 (as amended on August 22, 2025) in view of Villa (US 9,192,581 B2) and Gareb (“Development of novel zero-order release budesonide tablets for the treatment of ileo-colonic inflammatory bowel disease and comparison with formulations currently used in clinical practice.” Int’l Journal of Pharmaceutics 554 (2019): 366-375).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following: Conflicting claim 2 of the ’972 Application is directed to a method of treating IgA nephropathy by orally administering, at a dosage of “about 16 mg,” a budesonide formulation that is substantially similar to the formulation recited in claim 2 of the present application. Conflicting claims 3 and 4 disclose that the budesonide formulation is in the form of an enterically-coated tablet, and conflicting claims 15-16 disclose that the tablet can comprise HPC or HPMC. Conflicting claim 23 discloses that each unit dosage form comprises about 4 mg budesonide, and conflicting claim 24 discloses the release profile recited in present claim 31. The teachings of Villa and Gareb, which are discussed above in the §103 rejections and are incorporated by reference into this rejection, compensate for any deficiencies in the conflicting claims in relation to the compositional profile of the tablet recited in the dependent claims of the present application. Therefore, the present claims are not patentably distinguishable over conflicting claims 2-31 of the ’972 Application. This is a provisional rejection because the conflicting claims have not been patented.
Claims 2-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-31 of co-pending Application No. 19/242,380 (as amended on December 24, 2025) in view of Villa (US 9,192,581 B2) and Gareb (“Development of novel zero-order release budesonide tablets for the treatment of ileo-colonic inflammatory bowel disease and comparison with formulations currently used in clinical practice.” Int’l Journal of Pharmaceutics 554 (2019): 366-375).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following: Conflicting claims 2 and 15 of the ’380 Application are directed to a method of treating IgA nephropathy by orally administering, at a dosage of “about 16 mg,” an enteric budesonide formulation that is substantially similar to the formulation recited in claim 2 of the present application. Conflicting claim 16 discloses that the budesonide formulation is in the form of a tablet, and conflicting claims 14-15 disclose a release profile that targets the ileum. Conflicting claims 9-10 and 28 disclose that the tablet can comprise HPC or HPMC. The teachings of Villa and Gareb, which are discussed above in the §103 rejections and are incorporated by reference into this rejection, compensate for any deficiencies in the conflicting claims in relation to the compositional profile of the tablet recited in the dependent claims of the present application. Therefore, the present claims are not patentably distinguishable over conflicting claims 2-31 of the ’380 Application. This is a provisional rejection because the conflicting claims have not been patented.
Claims 2-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-31 of co-pending Application No. 19/303,799 (as amended on September 25, 2025) in view of Villa (US 9,192,581 B2) and Gareb (“Development of novel zero-order release budesonide tablets for the treatment of ileo-colonic inflammatory bowel disease and comparison with formulations currently used in clinical practice.” Int’l Journal of Pharmaceutics 554 (2019): 366-375).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following: Conflicting claim 2 of the ’799 Application is directed to a method of treating IgA nephropathy by orally administering, at a dosage of “about 16 mg,” an enterically-coated budesonide formulation that targets the ileum and is substantially similar to the formulation recited in claim 2 of the present application. Conflicting claim 7 discloses that the budesonide formulation is in the form of a tablet, and conflicting claims 22-23 disclose that the tablet can comprise HPC or HPMC. Conflicting claim 30 discloses that each unit dosage form comprises about 4 mg budesonide, and conflicting claim 31 discloses the release profile recited in present claim 31. The teachings of Villa and Gareb, which are discussed above in the §103 rejections and are incorporated by reference into this rejection, compensate for any deficiencies in the conflicting claims in relation to the compositional profile of the tablet recited in the dependent claims of the present application. Therefore, the present claims are not patentably distinguishable over conflicting claims 2-31 of the ’799 Application. This is a provisional rejection because the conflicting claims have not been patented.
Conclusion
Claims 2-31 are rejected.
The title is objected to.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER ANTHOPOLOS whose telephone number is 571-270-5989. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday (9:00 am – 5:00 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bethany P. Barham, can be reached on Monday – Friday (9:00 am – 5:00 pm) at 571-272-6175. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/P.A./
23 January 2026
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611