DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Arguments/Remarks filed on January 23 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-24, 29, 32-35 and 38-39 were/stand cancelled. Claims 25 and 28 were amended. Claims 40-62 were added. Claims 25-28, 30-31, 36-37 and 40-62 are pending. Claims 36-37, 46 (similar to previously presented claim 8), 49 (similar to previously pretend claim 11), 51 (similar to previously presented claim 13), 55 (similar to previously presented claim 17), 57 (similar to previously presented claim 19) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 29 2026. Claims 25-28, 30-31, 40-45, 47-48, 50, 52-54, 56 and 58-62 are directed to the elected invention.
The species election of the CpG oligonucleotide was previously expanded to include SEQ ID NO: 8, 12, 13 and 21. In light of the amendments to the claims, the species election of the sequence has been expanded to include SEQ ID NO: 6-7.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 12 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The amendments filed January 12 2026 are sufficient to overcome the objection of claim 1 and 4.
The amendments filed January 12 2026 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20-23 and 25-31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Ishii et al. (USPGPUB No. 20160208260, cited on PTO Form 1449). While the examiner does not agree that the claim necessarily limits the scope of the CpG oligodeoxynucleotide (see 112b rejection below), the claim does limit the oligodeoxynucleotide to consist of a CpG oligodeoxynucleotide and a polydeoxyadenylic acid. Therefore additional nucleotides other than these two sequences are excluded from the claims.
New and Modified Rejections Necessitated by the Amendments
filed January 12 2026
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 25-28, 30-31, 40-45, 47-48, 50, 52-54, 56 and 58-62 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.
Claim 25 as currently written is vague and indefinite. The claim recites the oligodeoxynucleotide consists of a CpG oligodeoxynucleotide wherein “said oligodeoxynucleotide” consist of 8 to 16 bases but then also states “and comprises a polydeoxyadenylic acid”. The claim doesn’t clearly indicate what comprises a polydeoxyadenylic acid. If it is the oligonucleotide, then this creates confusion as to the scope of the oligodeoxynucleotide because the claim also recites “consists of”. Since the polydeoxyadneylic tail would necessarily result in the oligodeoxynucleotide to consist of more than 16 bases (as each A of the tail is a base). Thus the scope of what can and can’t be included in the oligodeoxynucleotide is not clear.
In the interest of compact prosecution the examiner will interpret the oligodeoxynucleotide to consist of a CpG oligodeoxynucleotide and a polydeoxyadenylic acid wherein the CpG oligodeoxynucleotide consist of 8 to 16 bases.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 25-28, 30-31, 40-45, 47-48, 50, 52-54, 56 and 58-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (USPGPUB No. 20160208260, cited on PTO Form 1449) in view of Klinman et al. (USPGPUB No. 20110189267).
Applicant Claims
The instant application claims a complex which comprises an oligodeoxynucleotide and a β-1,3-glucan wherein the oligodeoxynucleotide consists of aCpG oligodeoxynucleotide comprising a nucleotide sequence represented by formula (I): 5'X-CpG-L-CpG-TZ3' (I) wherein X is T or C, L is a nucleotide sequence consisting of 1 to 7 bases, Z is T or C, and consisting of 8 to 16 bases, and a polydeoxyadenylic acid having a length capable of forming a complex with a p-1,3- glucan, wherein the polydeoxyadenylic acid is linked to the 3' side of the CpG oligodeoxynucleotide.
As elected the CpG oligodeoxynucleotide is SEQ ID NO: 20:
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Ishii et al. is directed to a complex containing oligonucleotide having immunopotentiating active and use thereof. Taught are complexes of a K type CpG ODN with a poly(dA) tail and schizophyllan (paragraph 0041). The oligodeoxynucleotide has a length of not less than 10 nucleotides and is of a sequence of: ′N1N2N3T-CpG-WN4N5N63′ wherein CpG motif in the center is not methylated, W is A or T, and N1, N2, N3, N4, N5 and N6 may be any nucleotides (claim 2). The complex has immunostimulating activity (abstract). Glucans include lentinan, schizophyllan, scleroglucan, curdlan, pachyman, grifolan and laminaran with lentinan and schizophyllan being preferable (paragraph 0161-0166). Phosphodiester bonds in the oligodeoxynucleotide are partly or entirely substituted by phosphorothioate bonds wherein the phosphorothioate modification is resistant to degradation (claim 4; paragraph 0009; 0153). A pharmaceutical composition comprising the complex is taught (claim 38).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
While Ishii et al. teaches CpG oligodeoxynucleotides, Ishii et al. does not expressly teach a sequence of SEQ ID NO: 20. However, this deficiency is cured Klinman et al.
Klinman et al. is directed to compositions including multiple oligodeoxynucleotides with a CpG motif to induce an immune response. The compositions can include either D or K type oligonucleotides (abstract). As claimed the oligodeoxynucleotides comprise a sequence represented by formula: 5′ N1N2N3T-CpG-WN4N5N6 3′, wherein W is A or T, and N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, and N6 are any nucleotide (claim 1). This oligonucleotide can comprise multiple CpG motifs (claim 2). Phosphorothioate bases are claimed (claim 10). Specific sequence taught are SEQ ID NO: 10: gtcggcgttg ac; SEQ ID NO: 9: gtcgacgttg ac, SEQ ID NO: 4: tctcgagcgttctc and SEQ ID NO: 17: ctcgagcgttctc as well as sequences K23, K109 and K123. Phosphorothioate backbone modifications are taught (paragraph 0100).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishii et al. and Klinman et al. and utilize oligodeoxynucleotides taught in Klinman et al. with the poly(dA) tail and complex of Ishii et al. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize the oligodeoxynucleotides in Klinman et al. and they are taught as being used for the same purpose as Ishii et al. Since both Ishii et al. and Klinman et al. are directed to oligodeoxynucleotides which produce an immune response, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to vary the oligodeoxynucleotide in order to produce the desired effect. Since both Ishii et al. and Klinman et al. teach K type CpG oligodeoxynucleotides there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the claimed oligodeoxynucleotides and SEQ ID NO: 20, Klinman et al. teaches that these oligodeoxynucleotides can include two CpG motifs.
SEQ ID NO: 20: TCGGCGTTC
SEQ ID NO: 10: GTCGGCGTTGAC
SEQ ID NO: 10 is not a 100% match for instant SEQ ID NO: 20 but Klinman et al. generally teaches that any base can be used at this position. Since there are only 4 choices for bases at this position and one is exemplified, one skilled in the art would have recognized that other bases could be utilized. This sequence would read on the instant claims because it is 12 nt long (falling within the claimed 8 to 16 bases), L is 1, X is T and Z is T as recited in claim 25, 40 and 41. Since claim 25 recites that the CpG oligodeoxynucleotide comprises a nucleotide sequence represented by formula I additional nucleotides up to 16 bases are allowed. This sequence reads on claim 42-44 wherein Y1 is G and Y2-Y7 are not present as well as claim 47.
Regarding other claimed sequences:
SEQ ID NO: 12 (instant, Qy) compared to SEQ ID NO:4 (Klinman et al., Db, 14 nt)
PNG
media_image1.png
188
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This sequence reads on X is T and Z is T reading on instant claims 40-41. This reads on Y3 to Y7 as being absent and Y1 is A and Y2 is G reading on instant claims 42-45. The AG reads on claim 47. The length reads on claims 52-53.
SEQ ID NO: 13 (instant, Qy) compared to SEQ ID NO:4 (Klinman et al., Db, 14 nt)
PNG
media_image2.png
182
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This sequence reads on X is T and Z is T reading on instant claims 40-41. This reads on Y3 to Y7 as being absent and Y1 is A and Y2 is G reading on instant claims 42-45. The AG reads on claim 47. The length reads on claims 52-53.
SEQ ID NO: 8 (instant, Qy) compared to SEQ ID NO:17 (Klinman et al., Db, 13 nt)
PNG
media_image3.png
172
630
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This sequence reads on X is T and Z is T reading on instant claims 40-41. This reads on Y3 to Y7 as being absent and Y1 is A and Y2 is G reading on instant claims 42-45. The AG reads on claim 47. The length reads on claims 52-53.
SEQ ID NO: 21 (instant, Qy) compared to SEQ ID NO:9 (Klinman et al., Db, 12 nt)
PNG
media_image4.png
174
612
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This sequence reads on X is T and Z is T reading on instant claims 40-41. This reads on Y3 to Y7 as being absent and Y1 is A reading on instant claims 42-45. The A reads on claim 47. The length reads on claims 52-53.
SEQ ID NO: 6 (instant Qy) compared to SEQ ID NO: 1 (Klinman et al, K23, 12 nt):
PNG
media_image5.png
312
675
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This sequence consists of an oligodeoxynucleotide sequence of SEQ ID No: 6 reading on claim 56. This sequence reads on X is T and Z is T reading on instant claims 40-41. This reads on Y3 to Y7 as being absent and Y1 is A and Y2 is G reading on instant claims 42-45. The AG reads on claim 47. The length reads on claims 52-53. Since this is an exact sequence it has no additional sequence as recited in claims 48, 50 and 56.
SEQ ID No: 13 (Instant Qy) compared to SEQ ID No: 117 (Klinman et al., K109, 11 nt)
PNG
media_image6.png
324
706
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This sequence consists of an oligodeoxynucleotide sequence of SEQ ID No: 13 reading on claim 56. This sequence reads on X is T and Z is T reading on instant claims 40-41. This reads on Y3 to Y7 as being absent and Y1 is A and Y2 is G reading on instant claims 42-45. The AG reads on claim 47. The length reads on claims 52-53. Since this is an exact sequence it has no additional sequence as recited in claims 48, 50 and 56.
SEQ ID No: 7 (Instant, Qy) compared to SEQ ID NO: 108 (Klinman et al., K123, 12 nt)
PNG
media_image7.png
298
727
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This sequence consists of an oligodeoxynucleotide sequence of SEQ ID No: 7 reading on claim 56. This sequence reads on X is T and Z is T reading on instant claims 40-41. This reads on Y3 to Y7 as being absent and Y1 is T and Y2 is T reading on instant claims 42-45. The TT reads on claim 47. The length reads on claims 52-53. Since this is an exact sequence it has no additional sequence as recited in claims 48, 50 and 56.
Regarding claims 26-27 and 30-31, it is taught that the invention provides a complex containing the above-mentioned oligodeoxynucleotides of the present invention and β-1,3-glucan. Glucans include lentinan, schizophyllan, scleroglucan, curdlan, pachyman, grifolan and laminaran with lentinan and schizophyllan being preferable (paragraph 0161-0166). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try any of the specifically taught glucans as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 KSR International CO. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
Regarding claim 54, while the prior art does not expressly teach a CpG oligonucleotide consisting of ONLY SEQ ID NO: 12 or 21, the instant claims are not interpreted as limiting the CpG oligonucleotide to ONLY those nucleotides recited in SEQ ID NO: 12 and 21. Instant claim 54 recites “wherein the nucleotide sequence represented by formula (I) consists of the nucleotide sequence represented by”. This means ONLY formula (I) is limited to that particular sequence. Claim 25 recites “wherein the oligodeoxynucleotide consists of a CpG oligodeoxynucleotide comprising a nucleotide sequence represented by formula (I). The claim is therefore interpreted as allowing for more nucleotides than the claimed sequences but it contain the recited sequence exactly and the total of the CpG oligodeoxynucleotide must be between 8 to 16 bases. As set forth above, SEQ ID NO: 4 of Klinman et al. contains 14 total nt and has 100% identity to instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 12; SEQ ID NO: 9 of Klinman et al. contains 12 total nt and has 100% identity to instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 21.
Regarding claims 58-59, both Ishii et al. and Klinman et al. teach phosphorothioate bonds with Ishii et al. expressly teaching all bonds are phosphorothioate.
Regarding claims 60-62, these sequences contain the instantly claimed CpG with varying lengths of poly(dA). Ishii et al. teaches that the length of the poly(dA) is from 20-60 nucleotides in length. It is taught that when it is not less than 30 nucleotides in length, good complexation efficacy is achieved (paragraph 0145). Therefore, Ishii et al. teaches poly(dA) tails which overlap in length with the claimed sequences which have polydA lengths of 20, 25, 30, 35 or 40. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed January 12 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that (1) the examiner has not pointed out any direction int eh cited art for making the specific selections required by the claims. While each of the references may teach that oligodeoxynucleotides induce immune responses the particular selections by the invention produced unexpectedly superior immune responses. It is argued that Klinman does not teach modifying the oligodeoxynucleotide of the invention (SEQ ID NO: 20) into that of SEQ ID NO: 10. These two sequences are materially different.
Regarding Applicants’ first argument, firstly, none of the claims limit the CpG oligodeoxynucleotide to consist of only SEQ ID No: 20. While claim 56 does recite that the CpG oligodeoxynucleotide consists of the nucleotide sequence represented by SEQ ID NO: 20, there are other sequences taught that are expressly taught with the same sequence. Secondly, the rejection is not based on modifying SEQ ID NO: 20 into that of SEQ ID NO: 10 but that SEQ ID NO: 10 is similar to instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 20 the only difference is G in SEQ ID No: 10 compared to C in SEQ ID NO: 20 as indicated in the rejection. However, Klinman et al. teaches that the nucleotide at this can be one of for bases A, T, C or G. Thus replacement at this position of G with C would be obvious absent a demonstration of the criticality of the base. While SEQ ID NO: 10 contains additional bases than instantly claimed 20, as set forth in the rejection above, the claimed CpG oligonucleotide comprises Formula I. Thus as long as the additional sequences do not result in the CpG oligonucleotide to contain more than 16 bases, it reads on the instant claimed.
Applicants argue that (2) while both oligodeoxynucleotides could contain CpG motifs, even small changes in sequence length and flanking base choices were known to significantly affect immune activation. Such changes would not have been expected to induce identical immunostimulatory effects even with the same poly-A tail or in combination with beta 1,3-glucan. The CpG-ODN activity depends on sequence length, the exact CpG motif and the bases flanking each CpG. Based on the compositional difference and the length variation one would not have expected identical synergy with beta-glucan or similar cytokine spectra. The examiner’s conclusion of obviousness does not take into account the unexpected advantageous properties achieved by the complex of a short K-type CpG ODN-poly(dA) and Beta-1,3-glucan as shown in the instant specification. Paragraph 0010 of the present speciation states that IFN-alpha production inducing activity was surprising enhanced over that of K3 when the short chain CpG ODN was equipped with a poly(dA) tail at the 3’-end and complexed with beta-1,3-glucan. Applicants point to data in the specification comparing the instantly claimed sequences to that of K3.
Regarding Applicants second argument, Ishii et al. teaches the poly(dA) and 1,3-beta-glucan. Ishii et al. teaches that placement of the poly dA on the 3’-side of the K type CpG ODN comes to have immunostimulating activity unique to K type CpG ODN as well as immunostimulating activity unique to D type CpG ODN (paragraph 0148-0149). Ishii et al. teaches that the length of the K type CpG ODN is most preferably 12-25 nt which overlaps in scope with both the instant claims and Klinman et al. (paragraph 0144). Ishii et al. teaches that K type CpG ODN scarcely induces IFN-alpha production (paragraph 0137) whereas D type CpG ODN produce IFN-alpha (paragraph 0041). Ishii et al. expressly teaches that surprisingly, the K type CpG ODN acquires an immunostimulating activity unique to D type CpG ODN (i.e. producing IFN-alpha) by forming a complex with beta-1,3-glucan without requiring the sequence of D type CpG ODN (paragraph 0162). Thus the prior art suggest that it would be expected for there to be an enhancement in IFN-alpha production by attaching a poly dA tail and complexing with the beta-1,3-glucan. Looking to the instant specification, while for example Fig. 2 shows various sequences with significantly increased IFN-alpha production, the examiner cannot agree that the data shows an unexpected effect over the full scope. Looking at Fig. 6, 36 and 46 do not appear to have any greater effect than K3. These two sequence both fall within the scope claimed and SEQ ID NO: 46 is expressly claimed in claim 61. K3 is taught as a 20 mer (see Klinman et al. Table 13). The instant claims encompass a CpG ODN of 16 nt. However, the sequences tested are significantly shorter than that (i.e. 8-mer (SEQ ID NO: 21, 9-mer (SEQ ID NO: 4,12, 19, 20 ), 10-mer (SEQ ID NO: 8, 15, 16, 17, 18), 11-mer (SEQ ID NO: 11) and 12-mer (SEQ ID NO: 6, 7). Thus, the data cannot be said to be commensurate in scope with the claims as the claims do not show the criticality of the 16 nt limit of the claim compared to the longer sequence. Note MPEP 716.02(d): “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range.” In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). This is important because Ishii et al. teaches that the expectation is that when the poly dA tail and the complexing with the beta-1,3-glucan occurs there is an increase in INF-alpha production. While some of the data shows a greater than expected effect, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110C and 130C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.). Note: MPEP 716.02(d). Ishii et al. which teaches the same poly dA tail and beta-1,3-glucan complex teaches K type ODN with a length of not less than 10 nucleotides. Therefore, while the short chains, i.e. 8-mer or 9-mer, might exhibit an unexpected effect, Applicants have not shown commensurate in scope with the claims an unexpected effect.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL VANHORN whose telephone number is (571)270-3502. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6 am-4 pm EST.
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, Neil Hammell can be reached at 571-270-5919. 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.
/ABIGAIL VANHORN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1636