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 .
Status of Application, Amendments and/or Claims
The amendment of 02 June 2026 has been entered in full. Claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, and 14-17 are amended. Claims 2, 8, and 13 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are added.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 20 October 2025.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 21-23 are under consideration in the instant application.
Withdrawn Objections and/or Rejections
1. The objections to the specification as set forth at page 4 of the previous Office Action of 02 December 2025 are withdrawn in part in view of the amended specification (02 June 2026). See Specification section for remaining issue, below.
2. The rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth at pages 4-6 of the previous Office Action of 02 December 2025 are withdrawn in view of the amended claims and Applicant’s persuasive arguments (02 June 2026).
3. The rejection of claim 17 on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping as set forth at pages 6-8 of the previous Office Action of 02 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amended claim (02 June 2026).
4. The rejection of claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as set forth at pages 8-9 of the previous Office Action of 02 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amended claims (02 June 2026).
5. The rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (J Mol Hist 48: 121-132, 2017) at pages 10-11 of the previous Office Action of 02 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amended and cancelled claims (02 June 2026). Specifically, the exosomes of Zhao et al. are derived from a conditioned medium collected from differentiated human amniotic epithelial cells, and not keratinocytes, as recited in amended claim 1.
Please note that any previous rejections over claims 2, 8, and 13 are hereby withdrawn in response to Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
Maintained Specification
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
6a. In the specification at page 12, [0028], the heading for “FIG. 2” should refer to figure subparts A-D (i.e., “FIG. 2A-2D”). The basis for this objection is set forth at page 4 of the previous Office Action of 02 December 2025.
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendment to the specification in an effort to correct this issue. However, paragraph [0028] has only been amended to refer to FIGS. 2A-2C (and not to 2D). Figure 2 contains a graph labeled “D”, so such should be referred to in the figure heading in the specification.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 17 and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
7a. Claims 17 and 21-23, in lines 1-2, recite the phrase “the composition further comprises at least one additional component chose from…”. However, in each claim, there is only one component listed. There is no list. Therefore, the claims should be amended to recite, for example, “wherein the composition further comprises .
Appropriate correction is required.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
8. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takano et al. (J Dermatol 47: 265-276, 2020). The basis for this rejection is set forth for claims 1-17 at pages 9-10 of the previous Office Action of 02 December 2025 and is reiterated herein below for convenience.
Takano et al. teach a composition comprising exosomes (extracellular vesicles) and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (a carrier), meeting the limitations of instant claim 1 (page 265, column 2, 1st full paragraph; page 266, column 2, 2nd and 3rd full paragraphs). Takano et al. disclose that the exosomes are derived from a conditioned medium collected from keratinocytes, meeting the limitations of instant claim 1 (page 266, column 2, 2nd and 3rd full paragraphs; page 267, column 1, last paragraph). Takano et al. teach that the exosomes are positive for CD9, CD63, and CD81, meeting the limitations of instant claims 15 and 16 (page 268, column 1, last paragraph through column 2; Figure 1b). Takano et al. disclose a composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes and a MEK inhibitor, such as SH-6, H-89, PD98059, or SB203580, meeting the limitations of instant claim 17 (page 268, bottom of column 2; page 271, columns 1-2; Figure 2).
Applicant is reminded that determination of patentability is based on the product itself (MPEP §2113(I)). “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (MPEP §2113(I); In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The composition comprising exosomes and a carrier of Takano et al. appear to be structurally identical to the composition comprising extracellular vesicles and a carrier of the instant claims.
(i) At the middle of page 13 of the Response of 02 June 2026, Applicant argues that Takano et al. fails to disclose a carrier as recited in claim 1. Applicant states that the use of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) cited by the Office is limited to washing steps in the process of isolating keratinocyte-derived exosomes (Takano pages 266-267). Applicant asserts that Takano et al. does not disclosing using PBS as a carrier that is combined with extracellular vesicles to create the composition recited in claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive. First, Applicant is reminded that the instant claims do not further limit “a carrier” in the claimed composition.
Second, Takano et al. clearly teach a composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes (extracellular vesicles) and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (a carrier), meeting the limitations of instant claim 1 (page 265, column 2, 1st full paragraph; page 266, column 2, 2nd and 3rd full paragraphs). Takano et al. teach incubating the composition comprising the keratinocyte-derived exosomes in the presence of melanocytes (page 268, bottom of column 1 through column 2; Figure 1). Therefore, a composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) as taught by Takano et al. meet the limitations of instant claim 1 (page 265, column 2, 1st full paragraph; page 266, column 2, 2nd and 3rd full paragraphs; page 267, column 1, last paragraph).
(ii) At the middle of page 13 of the Response of 02 June 2026, Applicant submits that Takano et al. fails to disclose a composition comprising “extracellular vesicles secreted by differentiated epithelial cells in a three-dimensional culture…wherein the differentiated epithelial cells were grown at an air-liquid interface from predecessor keratinocytes in a pre-conditioned cell culture medium” as now recited in claim 1. Applicant argues that the study described in Takano et al. uses exosomes isolated from the culture media of keratinocytes (page 266) and that such exosomes were then used to treat human epidermal melanocytes (page 268). Applicant contends that nothing in Takano et al. discloses using the isolated exosomes to prepare a composition as recited in claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive. As discussed in the previous Office Action and directly above in (i), Takano et al. clearly teach a composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes (extracellular vesicles) and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (a carrier), meeting the limitations of instant claim 1 (page 265, column 2, 1st full paragraph; page 266, column 2, 2nd and 3rd full paragraphs). As mentioned by Applicant, Takano et al. teach incubating the composition comprising the keratinocyte-derived exosomes in the presence of melanocytes (page 268, bottom of column 1 through column 2; Figure 1). Therefore, a composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) as taught by Takano et al. meet the limitations of instant claim 1 (page 265, column 2, 1st full paragraph; page 266, column 2, 2nd and 3rd full paragraphs; page 267, column 1, last paragraph).
The composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes and a carrier of Takano et al. appears to be structurally identical to the composition comprising (i) extracellular vesicles secreted by differentiated epithelial cells (from predecessor keratinocytes) in a three-dimensional culture and (ii) a carrier of the instant claims. Applicant is reminded that determination of patentability is based on the product itself (MPEP §2113(I)). “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (MPEP §2113(I); In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(iii) At the top of page 14 of the Response of 02 June 2026, Applicant argues that the characteristics of the cells and culture from which the extracellular vesicles recited in claim 1 are derived in part define the properties of such vesicles. Applicant states that the specification discloses that extracellular vesicles "carry a cargo of organic molecules from the parent cell," and that "[t]he differentiated epithelial cells approach physiologic conditions found in vivo to a greater degree than previously described with two-dimensional monolayer tissue culture systems" ([0067], [0073]). Applicant contends that the specification also presents data showing, for example, the variation in concentration of sizes of the extracellular vesicles secreted from keratinocytes cultured in two-dimensions compared to those secreted by the differentiated epithelial cells in three-dimensional culture ([0203]-[0205] (Example 2). Applicant states that the data in the specification shows that there was a different expression pattern of surface markers when comparing extracellular vesicles collected from a three-dimensional culture of differentiated epithelial cells to those from keratinocytes in a two-dimensional culture ([0206]-[0207] (Example 3)). Applicant submits that the keratinocyte-derived exosomes disclosed in Takano et al. are not "structurally identical" to those recited in claim 1, contrary to Office's position, and that Takano et al. fails to disclose all of the elements recited in claim 1 according to the proposed amendment.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has not come forward with evidence establishing a difference between the claimed extracellular vesicle product and the keratinocyte-derived exosomes of Takano et al. Applicant discusses the 2D and 3D keratinocyte cultures utilized in the examples of the instant specification, but does not provide a nexus of these cultures to that of Takano et al.
Furthermore, even if Applicant was to show the extracellular vesicles derived from the 2D keratinocyte cultures in the instant specification relate to or are identical to the keratinocyte-derived exosomes of Takano et al., the results of the specification still do not indicate that the claimed product secreted in a 3D culture is structurally any different from that of Takano et al.
Regarding Example 2, upon looking at Table 2 at page 65 of the instant specification, while there is a slight difference in the amount of extracellular vesicles per culture area, there does not seem to be a significant difference in median size between the large and small extracellular vesicles produced in 2D versus 3D culture.
In Example 3, the specification states that “[a]ll extracellular vesicle samples demonstrated the presence of tetraspanins compared to background, suggesting the presence of EVs in the small EV fraction regardless of culture conditions” (page 66, [00206]). The specification discloses that tetraspanins were also detected in the large EV fraction as well (page 67, [00207]). The specification indicates that when compared to conditioned media from 2D keratinocyte culture, there is an increased ratio of CD63+/CD81+ relative concentrations among small EVs (suggesting a different expression pattern) (pages 66-67, [00206]). However, the Examiner would like to point out that the small EVs from 2D keratinocyte cultures still comprise CD63 and CD81 (Figure 2D) and it is not clear if the increased ratio of CD63+/CD81+ referred to is a significant difference between 2D and 3D. Additionally, there is no disclosure and no other methods or working examples to indicate what expression pattern/markers are different between extracellular vesicles from 2D and 3D keratinocyte cultures. The specification suggests there is a different expression pattern between 2D and 3D keratinocyte cultures, but there is no further discussion about what that may be or the molecules involved.
Lastly, the Examiner would like to emphasize that in Example 4, the specification clearly discloses that all extracellular vesicle samples from 2D and 3D keratinocyte cultures express internal extracellular biomarkers, ALIX, TSG101, FLOT and HSP70 (page 67, [00209-00210]).
Therefore, in view of the view of the totality of results from the examples of the instant application, there does not appear to be a structural difference between the extracellular vesicles secreted in 2D culture versus the extracellular vesicles secreted in 3D culture. The extracellular vesicles in the 2D and 3D cultures comprise the same extracellular and intracellular markers. In other words, the extracellular vesicles/exosomes produced in the examples of the instant specification seem to be substantially the same whether produced in 2D or 3D keratinocyte cultures.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-16, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chavez-Munoz et al. (J Cell Physiol 221: 221-231, 2009).
Chavez-Munoz et al. teach a composition comprising exosomes (extracellular vesicles) from differentiated and undifferentiated keratinocytes; and conditioned media (a carrier), meeting the limitations of instant claim 1 (page 222, column 1, end of 2nd full paragraph; column 2, 2nd full paragraph). Chavez-Munoz et al. also disclose a composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes, dermal fibroblasts, and Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% FBS and antibiotic–antimycotic preparation, meeting the limitations of instant claim 1 (page 222, column 1, 2nd full paragraph; page 223, column 2, 2nd full paragraph; Figure 5C). Takano et al. teach that membrane-bound proteins, such CD9, CD63, and CD81, are associated with exosomes, meeting the limitations of instant claims 15 and 16 (page 268, column 1, last paragraph through column 2; Figure 1b). Lastly, Chavez-Munoz et al. teach that purified exosomes from differentiated and undifferentiated keratinocyte cells comprise metabolic enzymes, such as alpha enolase; fructose bisphosphate aldolase; glucose-6-phosphate isomerase; glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase; L-lactate dehydrogenase A; phosphoglycerate kinase I; phosphoglycerate mutase I; pyruvate kinase; transketolase; and triosephosphate isomerase, meeting the limitations of instant claims 21 and 23 (page 223, column 1, 1st paragraph; page 225, Table I).
Applicant is reminded that determination of patentability is based on the product itself (MPEP §2113(I)). “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (MPEP §2113(I); In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes and a carrier of Chavez-Munoz et al. appear to be structurally identical to the composition comprising extracellular vesicles and a carrier of the instant claims.
New 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.
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.
10. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al. (J Dermatol 47: 265-276, 2020) and Ghalili et al. (US 2022/0218609; priority to 11 January 2021).
Takano et al. teach a composition comprising exosomes (extracellular vesicles) and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (a carrier), meeting the limitations of instant claim 1 (page 265, column 2, 1st full paragraph; page 266, column 2, 2nd and 3rd full paragraphs). Takano et al. disclose that the exosomes are derived from a conditioned medium collected from keratinocytes, meeting the limitations of instant claim 1 (page 266, column 2, 2nd and 3rd full paragraphs; page 267, column 1, last paragraph). Takano et al. teach that the exosomes are positive for CD9, CD63, and CD81, meeting the limitations of instant claims 15 and 16 (page 268, column 1, last paragraph through column 2; Figure 1b). Takano et al. disclose a composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes and a MEK inhibitor, such as SH-6, H-89, PD98059, or SB203580, meeting the limitations of instant claim 17 (page 268, bottom of column 2; page 271, columns 1-2; Figure 2).
Takano et al. does not teach that the composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes and phosphate buffered saline further comprises a preservative.
Ghalili et al. teach that exosomes are fragile vesicles and maintaining their integrity in a suitable environment is necessary so that they can be utilized in difficult therapeutic situations (page 1, [0004]). Ghalili et al. disclose exosome-containing compositions that comprise additional components, such as preservatives, to maintain the structure and integrity of the exosomes and their contents (page 3, [0051]). Ghalili et al. indicate that typical preservatives include epsilon poly L-lysine, linatural, phenoxyethanol, and quaternary ammonium cations, among others (page 3, [0051, 0055]; page 5, [0071]). Ghalili et al. teach the resulting mixture including exosomes, and additional components (e.g., a solvent/skin penetrant (e.g. DMSO) and preservative (e.g. epsilon poly L-lysine)) can be maintained for storage prior to use at a temperature of from about -200° C. to about room temperature (about 25°C) (page 3, [0052]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes and phosphate buffered saline as taught by Takano et al. by including a preservative in the composition as taught by Ghalili et al. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make that modification to maintain the structure and integrity of the exosomes (since they are fragile vesicles) for a time period as much as two years (Ghalili et al., page 1, [0004]; page 3, [0052]). The person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have expected success because exosome compositions comprising preservatives were successfully being generated at the time the invention was made. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)). Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious over the prior art.
11. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-16, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez-Munoz et al. (J Cell Physiol 221: 221-231, 2009) and Ghalili et al. (US 2022/0218609; priority to 11 January 2021).
Chavez-Munoz et al. teach a composition comprising exosomes (extracellular vesicles) from differentiated and undifferentiated keratinocytes; and conditioned media (a carrier), meeting the limitations of instant claim 1 (page 222, column 1, end of 2nd full paragraph; column 2, 2nd full paragraph). Chavez-Munoz et al. also disclose a composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes, dermal fibroblasts, and Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% FBS and antibiotic–antimycotic preparation, meeting the limitations of instant claim 1 (page 222, column 1, 2nd full paragraph; page 223, column 2, 2nd full paragraph; Figure 5C). Takano et al. teach that membrane-bound proteins, such CD9, CD63, and CD81, are associated with exosomes, meeting the limitations of instant claims 15 and 16 (page 268, column 1, last paragraph through column 2; Figure 1b). Lastly, Chavez-Munoz et al. teach that purified exosomes from differentiated and undifferentiated keratinocyte cells comprise metabolic enzymes, such as alpha enolase; fructose bisphosphate aldolase; glucose-6-phosphate isomerase; glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase; L-lactate dehydrogenase A; phosphoglycerate kinase I; phosphoglycerate mutase I; pyruvate kinase; transketolase; and triosephosphate isomerase, meeting the limitations of instant claims 21 and 23 (page 223, column 1, 1st paragraph; page 225, Table I).
Chavez-Munoz et al. does not teach that the composition comprising exosomes from differentiated and undifferentiated keratinocytes and conditioned media further comprises a preservative.
Ghalili et al. teach that exosomes are fragile vesicles and maintaining their integrity in a suitable environment is necessary so that they can be utilized in difficult therapeutic situations (page 1, [0004]). Ghalili et al. disclose exosome-containing compositions that comprise additional components, such as preservatives, to maintain the structure and integrity of the exosomes and their contents (page 3, [0051]). Ghalili et al. indicate that typical preservatives include epsilon poly L-lysine, linatural, phenoxyethanol, and quaternary ammonium cations, among others (page 3, [0051, 0055]; page 5, [0071]). Ghalili et al. teach the resulting mixture including exosomes, and additional components (e.g., a solvent/skin penetrant (e.g. DMSO) and preservative (e.g. epsilon poly L-lysine)) can be maintained for storage prior to use at a temperature of from about -200° C. to about room temperature (about 25°C) (page 3, [0052]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the composition comprising keratinocyte-derived exosomes and as taught by Chavez-Munoz et al. by including a preservative in the composition as taught by Ghalili et al. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make that modification to maintain the structure and integrity of the exosomes (since they are fragile vesicles) for a time period as much as two years, allowing for future therapeutic or cell experiments (Ghalili et al., page 1, [0004]; page 3, [0052]). The person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have expected success because exosome compositions comprising preservatives were successfully being generated at the time the invention was made. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)). Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIDGET E BUNNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-6:00 pm.
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, Joanne Hama can be reached at (571) 272-2911. 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.
BEB
Art Unit 1647
10 August 2026
/BRIDGET E BUNNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1647
Prosecution Insights