Patent Application 17759740 - RECOMBINANT PROTEIN FOR NEUTERING OR SPAYING - Rejection

Patent Application 17759740 - RECOMBINANT PROTEIN FOR NEUTERING OR SPAYING

Title: RECOMBINANT PROTEIN FOR NEUTERING OR SPAYING ANIMAL, AND VACCINE COMPOSITION COMPRISING SAME

Application Information

• Invention Title: RECOMBINANT PROTEIN FOR NEUTERING OR SPAYING ANIMAL, AND VACCINE COMPOSITION COMPRISING SAME
• Application Number: 17759740
• Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-07-29T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-07-29T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 424
• National Sub-Class: 134100
• Examiner Employee Number: 81521
• Art Unit: 1675
• Tech Center: 1600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0014330🔗
• US 0304733🔗

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTION
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 .

Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 07/29/2022 is acknowledged. Claims 7-9, 12, 15, 18, 23 and 26 are amended; claims 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, 24, 25, 27 and 29-31 are canceled. No restriction is being imposed in this case. Claims 1-9, 12, 15-20, 22, 23, 26 and 28 are under examination.

Effective Filing Date
Applicant’s claims for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) and foreign priority are acknowledged. Under the AIA , the effective filing date of a claimed invention is the earlier of:
The actual filing date of the application;
OR
The filing date to which the application is entitled to a right of foreign priority or domestic benefit as to such claimed invention.

Based on the information given by Applicant and an inspection of the prior application, the examiner has concluded that the subject matter defined in the instant claims is supported by the disclosure in PCT/KR2021/003097.
Note that with regard to claiming foreign priority, the foreign priority date is the effective filing date of the claimed invention IF
the foreign application supports the claimed invention under 112(a), AND
the applicant has perfected the right of priority by providing:
a certified copy of the priority application, and
a translation of the priority application (if not in English).

In the instant case, the certified copy of the foreign priority application is not in English and no translation of the priority application is provided. Therefore, the effective filing date of the claims 1-9, 12, 15-20, 22, 23, 26 and 28 is 03/12/2021.

Sequence Rules
The instant application is not in compliance with the sequence rules, particularly 37 C.F.R. § 1.821(d), which requires that reference be made to a particular sequence identifier (SEQ ID NO: X) in the claims at each disclosure of a sequence encompassed by the definitions set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.821(a)(1) and (a)(2). Specifically, claim 7 recites His-Asp-Glu-Leu (HDEL) without its corresponding sequence identifier, SEQ ID NO: 10.  Appropriate correction is required.

Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities.
(i) Claim 1 recites “cholera toxin B subunit (CTV)”, but presumably “CTB” was intended (see for instance claim 3).
(ii) Claim 7 is grammatically awkward. The following amendment is suggested:
7. The vaccine composition of claim 1, wherein the recombinant protein is further fused with[[,]]  a, SEQ ID NO: 10) or mixtures thereof
 Appropriate correction is required.
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.


Claim 7, 8, 12, 15 and 19 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.
(i) Claim 7 recites “a porcine Fc fragment” followed by the acronym “pFc2” in parentheses and “a chaperone binding protein” followed by BiP in parentheses. The phrases “porcine Fc fragment” and “chaperone binding protein” are generic categories, while the parenthetical acronyms “pFc2” and “BiP” are specific examples of a porcine Fc fragment and a chaperone binding protein, respectively. See for instance, Adams et al. (Prog Mol Subcell Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 June 10), who disclose that these proteins form part of two major chaperone families (see abstract). In addition, Lee et al. (KR102053009—original document on IDS filed 11/06/2023; machine translation of description included) teach at least three different porcine Fc fragments, namely pFc1, pFc2 and pFc3 (see paragraph [0048]). The recitation of a broad category of protein followed by a parenthetical example in this context is exemplary claim language. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In the instant case, it is not clear whether the claims encompass all porcine Fc fragments and chaperone binding proteins, or only the parenthetical examples. Claims 8, 12 15 and 19 are also rejected for depending upon an indefinite claim.
(ii) Claim 19 contains the trademark/trade name Emulsigen®, namely “Emulsigen-based adjuvant”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product.  A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves.  Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a specific adjuvant and uses the trade name Emulsigen® as an example of this adjuvant to encompass adjuvants that are the same as or similar to this trademarked product, as evidenced by the recited phrase, “-based adjuvant” in claim 19. However, the trade name, Emulsigen® does not adequately describe the adjuvant intended by the claim because component formularies or availability may change based on the manufacturer. Accordingly, the identification/description of the instant adjuvant identified as Emulsigen® is indefinite.  See MPEP §§ 608.01 (v) and 2173.05(u). Claim 19 is also indefinite because it cannot be determined what is intended by an adjuvant that is “Emulsigen-based”. How would an adjuvant be considered “based on” the Emulsigen®; a source of the goods?
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013: 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.  

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –

(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Claims 1-9, 12, 15-19, 22, 23, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sohn et al. (US20230173044—effectively filed 06/29/2020; also published as WO2021194013—effectively filed 06/29/2020). The inventive entity of Sohn et al. differs from that of the instant case.
Sohn et al. teach a vaccine composition comprising a recombinant protein in which a cholera toxin B subunit (CTB) and n gonadotropin-releasing hormones (GnRH) are fused, wherein n is an integer from 1 to 20 (claim 31) Sohn et al. also teach the CTB comprises an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 4 and the n is 6 (i.e., SEQ ID NO: 2), the GnRHs are linked to each other via an alanine-glycine-alanine linker (claims 33-35). Further, Sohn et al. teach the recombinant protein may be further fused with a porcine immunoglobulin Fc fragment (pFc2—SEQ ID NO: 6), a chaperone binding protein (BiP—SEQ ID NO: 8), and/or His-Asp-Glu-Leu (HDEL—see claims 36, 37, 39, 40 and 42), wherein:
the CTB is fused in the N-terminal direction of GnRH and the pFc2 is fused in the C-terminal direction of GnRH (claim 38);
the CTB is fused in the N-terminal direction of GnRH and the BiP is fused in the N-terminal direction of CTB (claim 41);
the CTB is fused in the N-terminal direction of GnRH and the HDEL is fused in the C-terminal direction of GnRH (claim 43); or
The BiP, CTB, GnRH, pFc2, and HDEL are sequentially fused (claim 44).

Sohn et al. teach the entire recombinant protein comprises an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 12 (claim 45) and comprises an “Emulsigen-based adjuvant” (claims 46-47). Sohn et al. also teach a recombinant vector comprising a GnRH gene comprising a base sequence of SEQ ID NO: 3 and a CTB gene comprising a base sequence of SEQ ID NO: 5 and a transformant transformed with the recombinant vector (claims 48 and 49). The sequences disclosed by Sohn et al. share 100% sequence identity with those of the instant claims.
Although Sohn et al. teach the vaccine is for the purpose of removing boar taint rather than neutering or spaying an animal, the instant claims are drawn to a product, and not a method. In the instant case, the preamble is drawn to an intended use of the product, which does not limit the structure of the product. See MPEP 2111.02(II): 
If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81”.

In the instant case, Figure 1 in Sohn et al. presenting the claimed vaccine is identical to that of the instant Figure 1, thus, it is clear that the same product is being claimed.

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 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 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harland et al. (US2001/0014330) in view of Pitcovski et al. (US2009/0304733) and Hou et al. (Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 2014; 10: 1274-1283). The first factor to consider when making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is to determine the scope and contents of the prior art. Harland et al. teach a method of inducing an immune response in a porcine subject by administering GnRH linked to a carrier molecule (see claims 1-3, 8, and 17). Harland et al. teach that the purpose of immunizing with the GnRH is method “regulate fertility in a vaccinated subject by disruption of estrous cycles or spermatogenesis [0088]. Harland et al. teach that the carrier is a bacterial toxin that is linked to “multiple or tandem” GnRH repeats (see paragraphs [0023], [0024], [0029], [0042]-[0043], [0089], [0104]). Harland et al. describe construction of fusions between the toxin to multimers of GnRH to yield: toxin-GnRH repeats constructs (see paragraphs [0089], [0090], [0103]-[0109], [0121]). Thus, Harland et al. meet the limitations of claim 1 and 20. Finally, Harland et al. teaches combining the vaccine composition with an oil-in-water adjuvant (see claims 9 and 10), thus meeting the limitations of claims 18 and 19.
The second factor to consider is to ascertain the differences between the prior art and the instant claims. Harland et al. teach linking the GnRH repeats to a bacterial toxin, but they do not teach that the bacterial toxin is cholera toxin B subunit. Pitcovski et al. teach CTB-antigen fusion vaccines for veterinary use (claims 1, 8, 9, 12, 21, 22, 44, and 45). It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Harland et al. by attaching CTB, as taught in Pitcovski and colleagues because they teach that CTB binds to the cell receptor GM1 ganglioside, thereby facilitating entry into cells (see paragraph [0009]).  One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to have used the CTB toxin of Pitcovski et al. in the fusion construct of Harland et al. because the CTB is a “classical mucosal adjuvant” that binds to GM1 in order to increase immunogenicity of vaccines (see abstract, paragraph bridging the left and columns of p. 1274 of Hou and colleagues):
GM1 is a receptor molecule commonly expressed embedded in the plasma membrane of a wide range of nucleated cells, including epithelial cells, lymphocytes and antigen-presenting cells. CTB exhibits differential consequences in stimulated DCs or conjugation to antigens. It has been shown to significantly enhance the immunogenicity of linked exogenous antigens through induction of DC activation, enhanced B-cell and T-cell responses, and decrease the dose of antigen. (Citations omitted by examiner).

One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of using the CTB toxin of Pitcovski et al. in the fusion construct of Harland et al. because both Pitcovski et al. and Harland et al. teach a toxin-antigen fusion protein constructs for administration and further, Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. teach that CTB is effective in introducing vaccines into nucleated cells.

Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. as applied to claims 1 and 18-20 above, and further in view of the alignment of SEQ 1 with Geneseq db access no AAR62700 by Ladd et al 2003 and alignment of SEQ 4 with Geneseq db access no BEN23626 by Dang et al 2017. The first factor to consider when making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is to determine the scope and contents of the prior art. The combined teachings of Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. and how they meet the limitations of claims 1 and 18-20 are outlined above in the preceding rejection and are hereby incorporated.
The second factor to consider is to ascertain the differences between the prior art and the instant claims. While the combined teachings of Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. suggest the wild-type GnRH sequence and CTB, they do not teach the specific sequences corresponding to SEQ ID NO: 1 for GnRH and SEQ ID NO: 4 for CTB. The Geneseq db access nos: AAR62700 and BEN23626 share 100% sequence identity with instant SEQ ID NOs: 1 and 4 respectively, as required by instant claims 2 and 3. See the sequence alignments:
SEQ ID NO: 1:
RESULT 25
AAR62700
ID   AAR62700 standard; peptide; 25 AA.
AC   AAR62700;
DT   25-MAR-2003  (revised)
DT   10-SEP-1995  (first entry)
DE   LHRH-containing immunogenic peptide.
CC PN   WO9425060-A1.
CC PD   10-NOV-1994.
CC PF   28-APR-1994;   94WO-US004832.
PR   27-APR-1993;   93US-00057166.
PR   14-APR-1994;   94US-00229275.
CC PA   (LADD/) LADD A E.
CC PA   (WANG/) WANG C Y.
CC PA   (ZAMB/) ZAMB T.
CC PI   Ladd AE,  Wang CY,  Zamb T;
SQ   Sequence 25 AA;

  Query Match             100.0%;  Score 63;  Length 25;
  Best Local Similarity   100.0%;  
  Matches   10;  Conservative    0;  Mismatches    0;  Indels    0;  Gaps    0;

Qy          1 EHWSYGLRPG 10
              ||||||||||
Db         16 EHWSYGLRPG 25

SEQ ID NO: 4:
BEN23626
ID   BEN23626 standard; protein; 124 AA.
AC   BEN23626;
DT   14-DEC-2017  (first entry)
DE   Cholera toxin B subunit protein, SEQ ID 4.
KW   Cholera toxin B subunit; bacterial infection; immune stimulation;
KW   vaccine antibacterial; veterinary.
OS   Unidentified.
CC PN   CN106928373-A.
CC PD   07-JUL-2017.
CC PF   17-MAR-2017; 2017CN-10190884.
PR   17-MAR-2017; 2017CN-10190884.
CC PA   (QING-) QINGDAO MINGQIN BIOTECHNOLOGY CO LTD.
CC PI   Dang J,  Li D,  Liu T,  Pu Q,  Qi C,  Ren B,  Tian C,  Wu Q,  Xu H;
CC PI   Zhang D,  Zhang X;
DR   WPI; 2017-514733/57.
DR   N-PSDB; BEN23625.

  Query Match             100.0%;  Score 528;  Length 124;
  Best Local Similarity   100.0%;  
  Matches  102;  Conservative    0;  Mismatches    0;  Indels    0;  Gaps    0;

Qy          1 TPQNITDLCAEYHNTQIHTLNDKIFSYTESLAGKREMAIITFKNGATFQVEVPGSQHIDS 60
              ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db         22 TPQNITDLCAEYHNTQIHTLNDKIFSYTESLAGKREMAIITFKNGATFQVEVPGSQHIDS 81

Qy         61 QKKAIERMKDTLRIAYLTEAKVEKLCVWNNKTPHAIA AISMA 102
              ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db         82 QKKAIERMKDTLRIAYLTEAKVEKLCVWNNKTPHAIA AISMA 123

It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of combined prior art teachings of Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. by using the sequences for GnRH and CTB, as taught in Geneseq db access nos: AAR62700 and BEN23624, as components of the fusion proteins because these sequences were well-characterized in the art. The person having ordinary skill in the art would be applying known peptide sequences to the vaccine suggested by the combined teachings of Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. The prior art contained a teaching of a vaccines comprising GnRH or CTB and suggested their combination in a single vaccine product would provide advantages when targeting GnRH vaccines to nucleated cells (see the preceding rejection, hereby incorporated). Further, the prior art taught that the amino acid sequences of GnRH and CTB were well-known. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known sequences of GnRH and CTB would have yielded predictable and successful results when designing a vaccine combining these two components. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Thus, the claims do not contribute anything non-obvious over the prior art.

Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. as applied to claims 1 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR102053009; published 12/09/2019; machine translation of description included). The first factor to consider when making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is to determine the scope and contents of the prior art. The combined teachings of Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. and how they meet the limitations of claims 1 and 18-20 are outlined above in the preceding rejection and are hereby incorporated. 
The second factor to consider is to ascertain the differences between the prior art and the instant claims. The combined teachings of Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. do not teach the inclusion of BiP, pFc2 and/or His-Asp-Glu-Leu (HDEL) in the vaccine. Lee et al. teach the inclusion of BiP, pFc2 and HDEL because BiP aids in transporting the vaccine to the endoplasmic reticulum, pFc2 increases vaccine expression and improves solubility, separation and purification, and HDEL minimizes vaccine degradation (see paragraphs [0030]; [0048] of the translation; also Figure 2 at p. 15 of the original document). Further, Lee et al. disclose the amino acid sequences of pFc2 (see sequence 4 of the original document) and HDEL, and the nucleic acid sequence of BiP (see sequence 8 of the original document), thus rendering obvious the limitations of instant claim 8. 
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. by attaching BiP, pFc2 and HDEL, as taught by Lee et al. because the addition of each of these molecules enhances the performance of the vaccine (see paragraphs [0030]; [0048] of the translation). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add BiP, pFc2 and HDEL because of the improvements in cell transport, solubility and bioavailability. For this reason, as well, the person of ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably expected success because.
Thus, the claims do not contribute anything non-obvious over the prior art.

Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. as applied to claims 1 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Kawabata et al. (WO 2018225662; translation included with original). The first factor to consider when making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is to determine the scope and contents of the prior art. The combined teachings of Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. and how they meet the limitations of claims 1 and 18-20 are outlined above in the preceding rejection and are hereby incorporated. 
The second factor to consider is to ascertain the differences between the prior art and the instant claims. The combined teachings of Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. do not teach the inclusion of His-Asp-Glu-Leu (HDEL) in the vaccine. Kawabata et al. teach a vaccine including CTB with HDEL fused to the C-terminus. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Harland et al., Pitcovski et al. and Hou et al. by including HDEL at the C-terminus, as taught in Kawabata et al. because they suggest that fusion of HDEL allows for efficient vaccine accumulation in the cells (see paragraphs [0028] and [0055] of the translation). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add HDEL to the C-terminus of the vaccine because it increases the exposure of cells to the vaccine, i.e.: “we aimed to increase the accumulation of the combination vaccine antigen candidate protein” (see paragraph [0055] of the translation). For this reason, as well, and because it was well-known in the art, the person of ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably expected success.
Thus, the claims do not contribute anything non-obvious over the prior art.

Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hsu et al. (CANCER RESEARCH Vol. 60, 3701-3705, July 15, 2000—on IDS filed 07/07/2023) teach that rabbits immunized with vaccines comprising GnRH repeats (12 copies) conjugated to a toxin resulted in higher titers (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA M BORGEEST whose telephone number is (571)272-4482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30 EDT.
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, Jeffrey Stucker can be reached on 5712720911. 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.





Christina Borgeest
/CHRISTINA M BORGEEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675