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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 24, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 13, 14, 21, 23, 25-29, 31, 33-37 and 39 are pending.
Claims 5-12, 15-20, 22, 24, 30, 32, 38 and 40 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 13 and 14 are currently amended.
Claims 25-29, 31, 33-37 and 39 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-4, 13, 14, 21 and 23 as filed on September 24, 2025 are under consideration.
Withdrawn Objections / Rejections
In view of the amendment of the claims, all previous claim objections are withdrawn, all previous claim rejections under 35 USC 112(a) are withdrawn, some previous claim rejections under 35 USC 112(d) are withdrawn, and all previous claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) by Gow are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “fee” in the preamble should recite “feed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/916748, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The prior-filed application does not disclose 10 to about 60% v/v trans cinnamaldehyde as in claim 1, does not disclose amounts ranging from about 10 to about 60% v/v or 20 to about 60% v/v as in claim 3, and does not disclose amounts of about 20% v/v as in claim 4.
The earliest date available to all pending claims is October 16, 2020.
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 14 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites ratios, however, it is unclear how these ratios are determined and the instant specification (e.g., paragraphs [0119]-[0122]) does not disclose a basis for the determination of these ratios.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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 4 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 4 (f) recites an embodiment comprising (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e) or about 20% + about 20% + about 20% + about 20% + about 20%. Notwithstanding the fact that the qualifier about permits some tolerance, these amounts sum to about 100% which appears to exclude the crustacean animal feed component newly introduced into claim 1.
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.
Response to Arguments: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
Applicant’s statement at page 6 of the Remarks that the rejection does not apply to the claims as presently presented is acknowledged but not found persuasive for the reasons set forth in the rejection.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bravo et al. (US 2012/0171323, published July 5, 2012) as evidenced by Okubo et al. (JP H 05-176689 A, published August 28, 1996, as evidenced by the Google translation, of record).
Regarding claim 1
Bravo teaches food additives (feed formulation) comprising 30 to 45% eugenol (crustacean animal feed), 30 to 45% cinnamaldehyde and 10 to 40% extract of a plant belonging to alliaceous family (crustacean animal feed) (title; abstract; claims; paragraph [0055]). Cinnamaldehyde is trans-cinnamaldehyde (paragraph [0025]). Bravo further teaches the additives are in the form of a powder consisting of particles having a size of 90 to 1000 microns (paragraph [0064]).
Regarding the recitation of a crustacean animal feed as required by claim 1, crustacean is merely an intended use recitation and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 21
Because Bravo anticipates compositions as instantly claimed, the compositions of Bravo are necessarily effective to treat or prevent infection caused by Vibrio because a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. In further support of inherency, Okubo evidences compositions comprising cinnamon oil or cinnamic aldehyde have strong preventing effects on infectious diseases inclusive of vibrio disease (abstract; page 1, second full paragraph under [0001]; page 2, Example).
Regarding claim 23
Regarding the “adaptation” of the formulation for delivery in a water source, claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. See MPEP 2111.04.
The above teachings therefore anticipate the claims.
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 2-4, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bravo et al. (US 2012/0171323, published July 5, 2012) as evidenced by Okubo et al. (JP H 05-176689 A, published August 28, 1996, as evidenced by the Google translation, of record) as applied to claims 1, 3, 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Stumpff et al. (US 2015/0164822, published June 18, 2015).
The teachings of Bravo have been described supra with regard to the anticipation of claims 1, 21 and 23. Bravo teaches 30 to 45% cinnamaldehyde, as required by instant claim 3.
Bravo does not teach cinnamon oil, citral, carvacrol or/and oregano oil as required by claim 2.
Bravo does not teach inter alia about 20% carvacrol as required by claim 4.
Bravo does not teach carvacrol or/and oregano oil as required by claim 13.
Bravo does not teach inter alia the ratio TC:carvacrol is 1:1 as required by claim 14.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Stumpff.
Stumpff teaches feed supplements for alleviating GI tract disorders comprising at least one agonist and/or antagonist selected from the group inclusive of carvacrol, eugenol and cinnamaldehyde (title; abstract; claims, in particular 1, 5), as required by instant claims 2, 13.
Regarding claims 2, 13, 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 food additives of Bravo comprising eugenol and cinnamaldehyde to further comprise additional actives inclusive of carvacrol as taught by Stumpff because such actives and combinations thereof are known to alleviate GI tract disorders. Additionally, it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claims 4, 14, it would have been obvious to include the additional actives inclusive of carvacrol in the compositions of Bravo amounts less than or equal to 30% because the compositions of Bravo minimally require 30% eugenol, 30% cinnamaldehyde and 10% extract. Amounts less than or equal to 30% render obvious the amount of claim 4 and the ratio of claim 14 because [i]n 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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 1-4, 13, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gow et al. (US 2007/0292540, published December 20, 2007, of record) as evidenced by Wikipedia “Cinnamaldehyde,” last edited December 10, 2024, of record and as evidenced by Okubo et al. (JP H 05-176689 A, published August 28, 1996, as evidenced by the Google translation, of record).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4
Gow teaches extracts of cinnamon (feed) comprising greater than about 20 wt% (approximately equivalent to vol% for products of similar density) cinnamaldehyde (title; abstract; claims, in particular 1, 2, 4; Tables 1, 5). 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). See MPEP 2144.05. Gow further teaches 40 wt% cinnamaldehyde (claim 12). As evidenced by Wikipedia, cinnamaldehyde is also known as trans-cinnamaldehyde.
The extracts may further comprise inter alia a polysaccharide (animal feed) (claims 2, 13, 14). Gow further teaches a food comprising the cinnamon extract (claim 17).
Gow does not specifically teach a crustacean animal feed as required by claim 1, however, crustacean is merely an intended use recitation and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the extract of cinnamon of Gow is a food product and is necessarily suitable for administration to animals inclusive of crustaceans.
Regarding claim 2
Gow further teaches the extracts may further comprise inter alia an essential oil (of cinnamon, cinnamon oil) (claims 2, 6, 7).
Regarding claims 2, 13
Gow further teaches carvacrol (claim 47).
Regarding claim 21
Because Gow renders obvious compositions as instantly claimed, the compositions of Gow are necessarily effective to treat or prevent infection caused by Vibrio because a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. Additionally, Gow further teaches the extracts are anti-bacterial and that cinnamaldehyde per se is anti-bacterial (paragraphs [0029], [0128]). In further support of inherency, Okubo evidences compositions comprising cinnamon oil or cinnamic aldehyde have strong preventing effects on infectious diseases inclusive of vibrio disease (abstract; page 1, second full paragraph under [0001]; page 2, Example).
Regarding claim 23
Regarding the “adaptation” of the formulation for delivery in a water source, claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. See MPEP 2111.04.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gow et al. (US 2007/0292540, published December 20, 2007, of record) as evidenced by Wikipedia “Cinnamaldehyde,” last edited December 10, 2024, of record and as evidenced by Okubo et al. (JP H 05-176689 A, published August 28, 1996, as evidenced by the Google translation, of record) as applied to claims 1-4, 13, 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Lamb (US 2018/0125913, published May 10, 2018, of record).
The teachings of Gow have been described supra.
Gow does not specifically teach or exemplify an embodiment comprising inter alia a 1:1 ratio of trans cinnamaldehyde with oregano oil or/and carvacrol as alternatively required by claim 14.
This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Lamb.
Lamb teaches feed compositions comprising oregano essential oil, thyme essential oil and cinnamon essential oil (title; abstract; claims, in particular 1). The oregano essential oil comprises carvacrol and is present from about 10 to 45% or about 33.33% (claims 2, 5; paragraphs [0020], [0036], [0042]). The cinnamon essential oil comprises cinnamaldehyde and is present from about 10 to 45% or about 33.33% (claims 2, 14; paragraphs [0018], [0041], [0042], [0044]). The compositions can enhance the health of animals and additionally obviate the need for hormonal and/or subtherapeutic antibiotic growth promotors (abstract; paragraph [0014]).
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 food of Gow comprising the cinnamon extract of Gow comprising greater than about 20 wt% (approximately equivalent to vol% for products of similar density) cinnamaldehyde to further comprise approximately equal amounts of either oregano essential oil or the carvacrol component thereof and thyme oil as taught by Lamb because feed compositions thereof can enhance the health of animals and additionally obviate the need for hormonal and/or subtherapeutic antibiotic growth promotors.
Claims 1-4, 13, 14, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze et al. (WO 2008/155536 A1, published December 24, 2008, of record) as evidenced by Okubo et al. (JP H 05-176689 A, published August 28, 1996, as evidenced by the Google translation, of record).
Schulze teaches animal feed products comprising an animal feed additive comprising an oil blend comprising (i) cinnamaldehyde and (ii) a compound inclusive of citral or/and thymol (title; abstract; claims), as required by instant claim 2. The cinnamaldehyde may be trans-cinnamaldehyde (page 5, line 35). The ratio of thymol to cinnamaldehyde is from 0.1:1 to 10:1 or from 1:1 to 5:1 (claims 4, 16; page 6, lines 3-4). The additive may further comprise carvacrol (claims 6, 18), as required by instant claims 2, 13. The additive may comprise at least 0.1 wt%, at least 20 wt% (approximately equivalent to vol% for products of similar density) of components (i), (ii) and carvacrol (page 8, lines 26-29). Schulze exemplifies embodiments comprising equal amounts of carvacrol and cinnamaldehyde (page 31, Table 9), as required by instant claim 14.
Schulze further teaches an animal feed comprising a feed substance and the animal feed additive (claim 23). The animal feed comprises at least 0.001 wt% of the additive (claim 24; page 11, lines 2-5). The feed may comprise at least 0.00001 wt%, at least 0.0020 wt% of components (i), (ii) and carvacrol (page 10, lines 29-32).
Regarding the amounts of trans-cinnamaldehyde of 10 to about 60%, of 20 to about 60%, of about 20% as required by instant claims 1, 3, 4, Schulze teaches broad ranges into which the instantly claimed ranges fall, sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. The broad ranges of Schulze also render obvious the amounts of citral or/and carvacrol as alternatively required by instant claims 3, 4.
Regarding the efficacy of treating or preventing an infection caused by Vibrio as required by instant claim 21, because Schulze is in possession of compositions as instantly claimed it is presumed that the compositions of Schulze are also efficacious against Vibrio. In further support of this presumption, Schulze further teaches a method of inhibiting pathogenic bacteria in an animal (claim 26). In further support of inherency, Okubo evidences compositions comprising cinnamon oil or cinnamic aldehyde have strong preventing effects on infectious diseases inclusive of vibrio disease (abstract; page 1, second full paragraph under [0001]; page 2, Example).
Regarding the adaptation for delivery in a water source as required by instant claim 23, because Schulze is in possession of compositions as instantly claimed it is presumed that the compositions of Schulze are so adapted. In further support of this presumption, Schulze further teaches the animal feed is suitable for inter alia ducks, geese, water fowl and fish (page 9, lines 31-34).
Claims 1-4, 13, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantini (WO 2014/009923, published January 16, 2014) as evidenced by Wikipedia “Cinnamaldehyde,” last edited December 10, 2024, of record and as evidenced by Okubo et al. (JP H 05-176689 A, published August 28, 1996, as evidenced by the Google translation, of record).
Cantini teaches animal feeds comprising monoglycerides of organic acids (crustacean animal feed) and glycerol; the feeds may be added to water (adapted for delivery in a water source) (title; abstract; claims; page 10, lines 13-17; Figure 1), as required by instant claim 23. The feeds have antibacterial activity (claim 1), as required by instant claim 21. The feeds are suitable for animals inclusive of fish (claim 8). The feeds may contain active principles of essential oils inclusive of cinnamic aldehyde (trans cinnamaldehyde as evidenced by Wikipedia) and carvacrol in amounts of 1 to 20 wt% (page 10, lines 7-12), as required by instant claims 2-4, 13. 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).
Cantini does not specifically teach a crustacean animal feed as required by claim 1, however, crustacean is merely an intended use recitation and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, because the feed of Cantini is suitable for all animals, the feed of Cantini is also suitable for crustaceans.
Cantini does not specifically teach the feed formulation is effective to treat infections caused by Vibrio (bacteria) as required by claim 21, however, such efficacy is merely an intended use recitation. In the instant case, Cantini teaches the feeds have antibacterial activity. Therefore, the feeds of Cantini inclusive of those comprising 1 to 20 wt% cinnamic aldehyde are necessarily efficacious. ). In further support of inherency, Okubo evidences compositions comprising cinnamon oil or cinnamic aldehyde have strong preventing effects on infectious diseases inclusive of vibrio disease (abstract; page 1, second full paragraph under [0001]; page 2, Example).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantini (WO 2014/009923, published January 16, 2014) as evidenced by Wikipedia “Cinnamaldehyde,” last edited December 10, 2024, of record and as evidenced by Okubo et al. (JP H 05-176689 A, published August 28, 1996, as evidenced by the Google translation, of record) as applied to claims 1-4, 13, 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Lamb (US 2018/0125913, published May 10, 2018, of record).
The teachings of Cantini have been described supra.
Cantini does not specifically teach or exemplify an embodiment comprising inter alia a 1:1 ratio of trans cinnamaldehyde with carvacrol as required by claim 14.
This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Lamb.
The teachings of Lamb have been described supra.
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 animal feed of Cantini comprising 1 to 20 wt% of essential oils inclusive of cinnamic aldehyde and carvacrol to comprise approximately equal amounts thereof as taught by Lamb because feed compositions thereof can enhance the health of animals and additionally obviate the need for hormonal and/or subtherapeutic antibiotic growth promotors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to Gow, Applicant’s statements at pages 6-7 of the Remarks that Gow does not teach a crustacean animal feed are acknowledged but not found persuasive because a crustacean animal feed as newly claimed is broadly and reasonably interpreted as encompassing anything that can be fed to crustacean. The instant specification does not evidence the contrary, merely disclosing “a suitable feed for crustaceans” in paragraph [0151]. Given that crustaceous inclusive of shrimp are omnivores as evidenced by Vital (copy provided), anything that can be fed to a crustacean encompasses a broad genus of food products as well as non-nutritional adjuvants. Therefore, the rejection over Gow is maintained in modified form as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
With regard to Schulze, Applicant’s statements at page 8 that the Examiner does not cite to a disclosure of Schulze of the claimed range are not found persuasive because the narrative of the rejection of record cites to multiple passages of Schulze rendering obvious the claimed ranges. The Examiner has met the burden of establishing prima facie obviousness. Traversals cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements. See 37 CFR 1.111. Therefore, the rejection over Schulze is maintained in modified form as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Additionally, new rejections are applied infra as necessitated by further search and consideration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Montalvan Mena et al. (WO 2018/128554) is the closest prior art as identified by USPTO artificial intelligence and teaches nutritional compositions for sea shrimps (title; abstract).
Li (CN 106107058 A, as evidenced by the Google translation) teaches a cinnamic aldehyde emulsion feed additive comprising 5 to 15 parts of cinnamaldehyde oil suitable for aquaculture (title; abstract; claims).
Qi (CN 109864216 A, as evidenced by the Google translation) teaches a disease-resistant type shrimp feed comprising 5 to 10 parts origanum (oregano) oil (title; abstract; claims).
Vital et al., “Feed of crustaceans for a durable development of the aquaculture: shrimps feeding: A review,” International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 6(5):121-126, 2018 teaches shrimps are carnivorous, omnivorous and detritivorous (page 124, section 4.1 “Natural diet of shrimps”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA PROSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-5164. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th, 10 am - 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID BLANCHARD can be reached on (571)272-0827. 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.
/ALISSA PROSSER/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/MARIANNE C SEIDEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600