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 .
The Petition for revival of this application for patent abandoned unintentionally under 37 CFR 1.137(a) is granted. This application has been revived and prosecution is reopened.
Priority
The present application claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 63/015,089 filed 04/24/2020.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Claim status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 9-19 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-8 and 20 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: grammatically mistake is found in “wherein the filter is further configured to bound…”. It should be read as “wherein the filter is further configured to bind…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follow.
Claim 1 recites: “the reaction medium configured to indicate Covid-19 susceptibility when concentration of an analyte exceeds a predetermined threshold in from the human bodily fluid.”
Claim 2 recites: “the receiving chamber configured to receive the human bodily fluid…”
Claim 3 recites: “wherein the reaction medium is configured to indicate Covid-19 susceptibility by color change.”
Claim 7 and 8 recite: “wherein the reaction medium is configured to detect an analyte…”
Claim 20 recites: “the reaction medium configured to indicate Covid-19 susceptibility when concentration of an analyte exceeds a predetermined threshold in from the human bodily fluid.”
Examiner notes that the words after “configured to” recite the function of the claimed device.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “a receiving chamber” is limited by the description in paragraph 30, which may comprise an absorbent pad connected to a filter; except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “a reaction medium” is limited by the description in page 19 paragraph 70, as a solution and/or a fixed substrate; except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 20 recite “wherein the filter is coated with a binding antibody, wherein the filter is further configured to bound an average amount of ACE2 and pass an excess amount of ACE2 to the reaction chamber…”. The claim does not clearly define what the binding antibody is, or what can the binding antibody bind to. The language of the claim does not clearly define if the binding antibody coated on the filter is for binding the ACE2 analyte or for doing other function of the testing device. The language of the claim does not clearly define that the claimed function of the filter (e.g., “the filter is further configured to biund an average amount of ACE2…”) is from the claimed binding antibody. One having ordinary skill in the art could not know the metes and bounds of the claimed “binding antibody” in the filter for performing the function of the device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 1 and 20 recite “an average amount”, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “average amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One having ordinary skill in the art could not know the metes and bounds of the claimed the average amount of ACE2 because the specification does not define how to obtain the average value of ACE2. It is noted that the examples of the average values of ACE2 in paragraph 28 of the specification are not the definition of the average amount.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected because they depend on the rejected claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites that the analyte is leucine. Since the claim 1 has been amended and specifically recites that ACE2 is an analyte of the testing device, claim 5 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends because claim 5 recites a different analyte that can be detected by the testing device.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebe (US9921229) in view of Ciaglia et al (COVID-19 Infection and Circulating ACE2 Levels: Protective Role in Women and Children, Front. Pediatr., 23 April 2020, Sec. Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Volume 8, PTO-892 07/31/2023).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Grebe teaches a kit with a testing device (see col.2 lines 49-51) comprising:
a receiving chamber configured to receive a human bodily fluid (see Fig.3 and col.10 lines 6-13: Grebe teaches a blood separation system for receiving the sample);
a filter comprising a filtering strip and configured to sequester particles such that detection of an analyte above a predetermined threshold, wherein the filter is in between the receiving chamber and the reaction chamber, wherein the filter is coated with a binding antibody, wherein the filter is further configured to bound an average amount of the analyte and pass an excess amount of the analyte to the reaction chamber (see col.10 lines 14-25: Grebe teaches that the blood separation system can function as a filter, e.g. to remove blood cells from the sample; see col.8 lines 3-49: Grebe teaches that a problem with high analyte concentrations in a sample to be tested can be the so-called “Hook effect,” as a decrease of the detectable signal at very high analyte concentrations because a limited number of capture or detector antibodies are faced by a very large number of analyte molecules that may be present in the sample. To solve the problem, the test device comprises one or more capture zones arranged (e.g. in series) on the membrane each at a position proximal to the test zone(s), through which the aqueous sample can pass progressively prior to reaching the test zone(s), the one or more capture zone(s) comprise monoclonal antibody LG96 or MG97 immobilized/bound thereto for preventing, reducing, or eliminating the Hook effect in assays of samples potentially subject to such an effect; wherein LG96 or MG97 is the antibody that can bind to the analyte.)
The teaching of Grebe supports that the capture zone acts like a filter which is coated with a binding antibody and the filter can bind to the analyte and pass an excess amount of the analyte to a reaction chamber. The reaction chamber is where the test zone(s) and control zone(s) locate. The teaching of Grebe also supports that the filter locates between the receiving chamber (i.e., blood separation system) and the reaction chamber.
The device of Grebe further comprises:
a reaction chamber comprising a reaction medium (see col.1 lines 43-46: Grebe teaches that the capture antibody bound to the membrane at the test zone is an antibody, or antigen-binding fragment thereof, that is specific for the analyte, so test zone is the reaction chamber and capture antibody bound to the membrane at the test zone is a reaction medium because the capture antibody can bind to the excessive analyte passed through the filter to indicate the test result)
wherein the indication of test result is human readable (see Fig.5 and Fig.7 and col.16 lines 43-47: Grebe teaches that results may be detected visually).
As discussed above, Grebe teaches a testing device comprising the structures recited in claim 1: a receiving chamber, a filter coated with a binding antibody, a reaction chamber comprising a reaction medium. Grebe does not teach that the device is used for Covid-19 susceptibility diagnosis and the analyte is Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2).
Ciaglia teaches the role of ACE2 in SARS-CoV-2 infection (see at least Title, page 1). Ciaglia discloses that ACE2 is the main host cell receptor of human pathogenic coronaviruses, and plays a crucial role in the entry of virus into the cells causing the final infection (see page 1, par.1). Particularly, the highly expression of ACE2 on cell surface (e.g., cells of lung, kidney, mucosa of cavity etc.) explains why these tissues are susceptible with SARs-CoV infection, which leads to pneumonia and bronchitis in severe Covid-19 while circulating ACE2 may offer a protection from virus infection in another model (see page 1, par.4-7). Ciaglia also teaches that the risk of severe Covid-19 may link to the balance between membrane-bound receptor and soluble forms circulating in bodily fluid (see page 1, par.5-7; page 3). Ciaglia suggests that circulating level of ACE2 may have prognostic effect in monitoring COVID-infection both at pre-clinical and clinical levels that is less extensive and time-consuming (see page 2).
Ciaglia also teaches that soluble ACE2 in bodily fluid link to susceptibility to SAR-CoV infection (see page 2 right col par.4, disclosing that circulating level of ACE2 may have prognostic effect in monitoring COVID-infection, and the genetic analysis of ACE2 polymorphisms might be a key element of individualized care for its prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.)
Therefore, 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 testing device and the kit taught by Grebe, substituting the ACE2 detection reagents in a reaction medium to detect ACE2 in the sample because detecting ACE2 concentration is useful in indicating covid-19 susceptibility as taught by Ciaglia (see Ciaglia page 1-3). Ciaglia also suggests that circulating level of ACE2 may have prognostic effect in monitoring COVID-infection (see page 2 right col par.4). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the testing device and the kit of Grebe in predicting who are susceptible to COVID infection because it would be helpful for public health mitigation and containment.
A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these art references because Grebe teaches in general an analyte detection device based on reagent-analyte colorimetric interaction in the bodily fluid sample, wherein reagents can be modified to detect a target analyte as desired, i.e., reagents for detecting ACE2. The results of the combination of Grebe and Ciaglia are predictable with a reasonable expectation of success because Ciaglia teaches that ACE2 can be detected in bodily fluid (see page 1 last par., teaching ACE2 were measured in plasma).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Grebe and Ciaglia teach the Covid-19 susceptibility testing device of claim 1, further comprising: the receiving chamber configured to receive the human bodily fluid, wherein the human bodily fluid comprises one of saliva, urine, and serum (see col.4 lines 59-67, col.15 lines 33-34: Grebe teaches the sample can be any biological source, such as a physiological fluid, e.g., saliva, urine and serum).
The Covid-19 susceptibility testing device of claim 1, wherein the reaction medium is configured to indicate Covid-19 susceptibility by color change (see col.6 lines 20-23, col.14 lines 25-26).
Regarding claims 7-8, Grebe and Ciaglia teach the invention as disclosed above. Grebe does not teach the threshold of ACE2 in urine and serum corresponds to Covid-19 susceptibility.
While Ciaglia does not specifically teach the concentration of ACE2 threshold as recited in claims 7 and 8, Ciaglia discloses the differences in an amount circulating ACE2 in individuals based on age, sex (see page 2 left col par.2-3, disclosing the different amount of circulating ACE2 in adult versus children or in male versus female). Ciaglia further discloses the average ACE levels in individuals grouped by age. Moreover, Ciaglia teaches that the covid-susceptibility in an individual may be associated with circulating ACE2 amount (see page 2 left col par.2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a predetermined threshold of ACE2 in the sample to compare the amount of ACE2 in the test sample with the threshold, then define a Covid-19 susceptibility status of a particular individual.
It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum of workable ranges by routine experimentation." Application of Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235-236 (C.C.P.A. 1955). "No invention is involved in discovering optimum ranges of a process by routine experimentation." Id. at 458, 105 USPQ at 236-237. The "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." Application of Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 218-219 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the predetermined threshold by normal optimization procedures known in the art for determining Covid-19 susceptibility status.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebe in view of Ciaglia, as applied in claims 1 and 3 above, further in view of Loibner et al (US8241864).
Regarding claim 4, Grebe and Ciaglia teach the invention as disclosed above in claim 3. They do not teach wherein a chromogenic compound provides the color change indication of Covid-19 susceptibility, the chromogenic compound comprising at least one of ninhydrin, a ninhydrin reaction product, a ninhydrin congener, dinitrophenol, a dinitrophenol reaction product, a dinitrophenol congener, paranitroaniline, a paranitroaniline reaction product, and a paranitroaniline congener.
Loibner teaches method for determining ACE2 activity in a sample such as bodily fluids, serum, blood (see Abs; col 5 lines 23-25). Briefly, the detection of ACE2 is based on its enzyme activity catalyzing a substrate to provide a signal. A change in the signal is measured during a specific period of time and that values correlates with the ACE2 activity (see col 1 lines 59-67, col 2 lines 1-8). Then, a substrate has a fluorescent part and a fluorescence-quenching part. The fluorescence signal increases when the quencher is separated by the ACE2 activity. (see col 2 lines 40-45). The quencher, dinitrophenol, is bound to peptide substrate Mca-Ala-Pro-Lys(Dnp)-OH (see col 5 lines 10-12; col 6 lines 10-12). This method is high throughput and susceptible to problems with the auto-fluorescence of biological components or interference which affect the sensitivity of the signal detection (col 1 lines 27-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a testing device and kit as taught by Grebe, substituting a substrate containing dinitrophenol chromogenic compound to the device as taught by Loibner (see Loibner col 1 lines 59-67, col 2 lines 1-8) which can then indicate presence of an analyte ACE2 in the sample. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these art references because Grebe is generic for the reporter moiety (see col.9 lines 51-65: teaching that the reporter moiety can be any of a wide range of materials/reporter systems known in the art) while Loibner is drawn to a functional equivalent reagent that could be used in Grebe’s device to detect a target analyte. Moreover, the combination of Grebe’s device and Loibner’s technique make analyte detection high throughput and more sensitive (see Loibner, col 1 lines 27-58).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebe in view of Ciaglia, as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Keidar et al (ACE2 activity is increased in monocyte-derived macrophages from prehypertensive subjects, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, Volume 22, Issue 2, February 2007, Pages 597–601, PTO-892 07/31/2023), and Huang et al (Novel Peptide Inhibitors of Angiotensin-converting Enzyme 2, JBC Volume 278, Issue 18, 2 May 2003, Pages 15532-15540, PTO-892 07/31/2023).
Regarding claim 5, Grebe and Ciaglia teach the invention as disclosed above. Grebe does not teach the device comprising Angiotensin I to produce Leucine from ACE2 in the human bodily fluid wherein Leucine is the analyte.
Keidar discloses that the activities of ACE2 are determined by measuring leucine or phenylalanine released following hydrolysis of Ang I and Ang II, respectively. (See Abstract). Because ACE2 hydrolyzes angiotensin I which results in cleavage of Leucine at the C-terminal, leucine is used as a surrogate analyte for investigating ACE2 (see Keidar, ACE2 activity section, disclosing that ACE2 activity result is shown as a formation of an amount of leucine per minute).
Huang also teaches that ACE2 hydrolyzes Angiotensin I to produce Ang-(1-9) and leucine (see Abstract; ACE2 Enzyme Assays Using Natural Substrate Ang I, page 15535, right col). Huang uses purified ACE2 protein for ACE2 Enzyme Assays (see page 15533, right col).
Both Keidar and Huang evaluate the activity and/or expression of ACE2 (in membrane-bound form and free form, respectively) mediated by its enzyme activity and the byproduct leucine with the presence of Ang I in a reaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a testing device and kit as taught by Grebe and Ciaglia, adding Angiotensin I in the device because it can react with ACE2 in the sample to produce Leucine. Then the device can detect Leucine as an indirect determination of ACE2 level and activities as taught by Keidar and Huang (see at least Keidar, Abstract, ACE2 activity assay; Huang see page 15535, right col).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to detect the ACE2 via its byproduct because it can not only measure the concentration of ACE2 but evaluate the functional activity of ACE2.
A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these art references because Grebe contains a generic device of analyte detection based on reagent-analyte colorimetric interaction in the bodily fluid sample, wherein reagents can be modified to detect a target analyze as desired.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebe in view of Ciaglia, as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of RayBiotech (Human ACE-2 Elisa, Mar 2020).
Regarding claim 6, Grebe and Ciaglia teach the invention as disclosed above. Grebe teaches the reaction medium comprises a substrate-bound test antibody (see col.1 lines 43-46: Grebe teaches that the capture antibody bound to a membrane of the device at a test zone and the capture antibody is capable of binding with an analyte).
Grebe does not teach that the antibody has an ACE2 biding affinity.
RayBiotech teaches a Human ACE-2 ELISA Kit describing a method to detect human ACE2 in cell culture supernatants, plasma, serum, and lysate samples. ACE-2 in a sample is detected by anti-human ACE-2 antibody and the amount of ACE-2 is calculated by the intensity of the color following enzyme reaction. See Introduction, page 3. Thus, RayBiotech discloses an immobilized anti-human ACE-2 antibody on the well’s surface, i.e., substrate-bound for binding ACE2 in a plasma or serum sample. See Introduction, page 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an anti-ACE2 antibody in a substrate-bound reagent in the modified Grebe invention as taught by RayBiotech because RayBiotech discloses that an immobilized anti-human ACE-2 antibody can bind ACE2 in a plasma or serum sample (see Introduction, page 3). Moreover, Grebe teaches a generic analyte detection device based on reagent-analyte colorimetric interaction in the bodily fluid sample, wherein reagents can be modified to detect a target analyze as desired. Therefore, using substrate-bound reagent specific to target analyte, i.e., antibody to ACE2 would result in a predictable outcome because the modified device can detect an analyte of interest, i.e., ACE2.
A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these art references because RayBiotech and Grebe are similarly drawn to devices/kit based on the colorimetric interaction of antigen-ligand to indicate the presence or absence of the analyte in the sample. Substituting one known element for another detecting reagents in the testing device to detect a target analyze as desired would result in a predictable outcome.
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 112(d):
Claim 2 has been amended. Claims 2 and 7-8 further limit claim 1 because the receiving chamber and the reaction medium are further defined by function. Applicant’s argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2 and 7-8 under 35 USC 112(d) is withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103:
Applicant argues that the combination of prior art references does not teach or suggest at least the claim elements as amended "a reaction chamber comprising a reaction medium, wherein the reaction medium is configured to indicate Covid-19 susceptibility when concentration of an analyte exceeds a predetermined threshold from the human bodily fluid, wherein the Covid-19 susceptibility increases if the concentration of the analyte exceeds the predetermined threshold in the human bodily fluid, wherein the filter is in between the receiving chamber and the reaction chamber, wherein the filter is coated with a binding antibody. wherein the filter is further configured to bound an average amount of ACE2 and pass an excess amount of ACE2 to the reaction chamber". However this newly cited limitation is taught by newly cited reference Grebe, and therefore Applicant's arguments regarding Bosch, Ma and Ciaglia is moot.
New ground rejection is made in view of the amendments of the claims. Claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are updated in view of the amendments of the claims.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N.B. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3663. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-6:30 CT.
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, Bao-Thuy L Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-0824. 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.
/CHAU N.B. TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1677
/BAO-THUY L NGUYEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1677 January 7, 2026