DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 14 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-7, 11-13, 15-18, and 20 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Claims 8-10 and 17-19 were canceled. Claim 20 was added. Claims 1-7, 11-13, and 16 were amended. No new material was added.
The previous objections and rejections of claims 8-10 and 17-19 are moot because the claims were canceled.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous objections to the claims and specification, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Claims 1-7, 11-13, 15-18, and 20 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the amendment.
The provisional rejections of claims 1-7, 11-13, and 15-16 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting have been modified to address the amendments and maintained.
The rejections of claims 1-7, 11-13, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified to address the amendments and maintained.
The new claim 20 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 9-11), filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Principe; claims 4, 6, 11, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Principe; and the provisional rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-16 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendment. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Delgado and Principe and on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over Application No. 17/892,387, in view of Delgado.
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, page 9) filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the terms that form the basis of the rejection were deleted. This does not address the previous rejection, because the bracketed term “SEQ ID NO:3” was moved into claim 1. Therefore, the same rejection is now applied to the independent claim 1. The bracketed terms SEQ ID NO:3 and SEQ ID NO:4 are unclear due to the sequences in the Sequence Listing mailed 06/09/2025 being inconsistent with the peptides listed in the claim. For example, the current sequence shows a different 15 amino acid sequence that does not correspond to Pal-KTTKS. The Examiner suggests amending SEQ ID NO:3 and 4 to match the peptide sequences listed in the claim.
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, page 10) filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 6-10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Delgado have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Delgado does not teach a leave on oral care composition comprising a polymer comprising hyaluronic acid or a salt thereof, as stated in the amended claim 1, and states that adding hyaluronic acid to Delgado is contrary to the purpose (Remarks, page 10). This argument is not persuasive, because Delgado teaches a leave on oral care composition comprising a polymer as previously stated, and specifically states the composition comprises a humectant to retain moisture, which can be hyaluronic acid (Delgado, page 16, lines 3-15) as stated in the rejection below.
Applicant further states that the unexpected results presented in the present application would rebut any finding of prima facie obviousness (Remarks, page 10). This argument is not persuasive, because evidence of unexpected properties should be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP 716.02(b). In this case, no comparison is made to the composition of Delgado. Further, the unexpected results being cited from the instant specification appear to include collagen upregulation and improved wound healing recovery. Delgado teaches the use of collagen synthesis-stimulating agents (Delgado, claim 28), which would suggest collage upregulation, and teaches hyaluronic acid promotes processes during wound healing (Delgado, page 4, lines 19-23), suggesting improved wound healing would also be expected.
New 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 1-7, 11-13, 15-18, 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.
Regarding claim 1, the bracketed recitations of “SEQ ID NO:3” and “SEQ ID NO:4” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations in brackets are part of the claimed invention or describing an example or preference. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is the Examiner’s interpretation that SEQ ID NO:3 is meant to correspond to the peptide sequence “Pal-KTTKS”, and SEQ ID NO:4 is meant to correspond to the peptide sequence GEKG, but the sequences appear to be incorrectly entered in the Sequence Listing, mailed 06/09/2025, as different 15 and 12 amino acid sequences, respectively.
Regarding claims 2-7, 11-13, 15-18, and 20, each claim is dependent on the rejected claim 1 and does not cure its deficiencies.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation "the amino acid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that this limitation was intended to read “the peptide”.
Modified/Maintained Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 11-13, 15-16, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-12, and 14-15 of copending Application No. 17/892,387 (reference application), further in view of Delgado (WO 2013139965 A2). The references were cited previously by the Examiner.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, the copending application teaches a leave-on oral care composition comprising a gum health compound comprising a retinyl ester, and a mucoadhesive polymer (copending application, claim 1). The copending application teaches the composition further comprises Pal-KTTKS (copending application, claim 12). The copending application does not specify the mucoadhesive polymer comprises hyaluronic acid or a salt thereof. Delgado, however, teaches a dermopharmaceutical composition (Delgado, abstract) which can be used to treat gingivitis (i.e., an oral care composition for gum health; Delgado, page 7, lines 31-32) and which can be a leave-on formulation (Delgado, page 13, line 25). Delgado teaches the composition can comprise retinyl palmitate (i.e., “a”, a retinyl ester and gum health compound as defined by the instant specification, page 10, line 3; Delgado, page 18, line 13). Delgado teaches the composition can comprise vitamins, humectants, or mixtures thereof (Delgado, claim 28), and teaches humectants include hyaluronic acid (i.e., “c”; Delgado, page 16, lines 3-15).
The copending application and Delgado are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Delgado, the copending application, and the instant invention are in the same field of oral care compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed invention to include hyaluronic acid as the mucoadhesive polymer, because the copending application does not specify which polymer should be used, while Delgado teaches hyaluronic acid acts as a humectant that retains moisture (Delgado, page 16, lines 3-15) and that promotes processes during wound healing (Delgado, page 4, lines 19-23), suggesting improved wound healing.
Regarding claim 2, the copending application and Delgado together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The copending application teaches the gum health compound comprises a metal ion source, vitamin, allantoin, gum strengthening polyol (i.e., a compound), or combinations thereof (copending application, claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, the copending application and Delgado together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The copending application teaches the gum health compound is free of jasmonic acid compound, gibberellic acid, zeatin compound, or combination thereof (copending application, claim 4).
Regarding claim 4, the copending application and Delgado together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The copending application teaches the oral care composition is free of abrasive (copending application, claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, the copending application and Delgado together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. The copending application teaches the metal ion source from the same claimed list (copending application, claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, the copending application and Delgado together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. The copending application teaches a vitamin from the same claimed list (copending application, claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, the copending application and Delgado together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The copending application teaches a retinyl ester from the same claimed list (copending application, claim 7).
Regarding claim 11, the copending application and Delgado together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The copending application teaches the composition comprises a mucoadhesive polymer and teaches the composition has a viscosity consistency coefficient K of from 20 Pas to 500 Pas as measured at 22°C at a shear rate of 0.1-10s-1 (copending application, claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, the copending application and Delgado together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The copending application teaches the composition comprises a fluoride from the same claimed list (copending application, claim 11).
Regarding claim 13, the copending application and Delgado together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The copending application teaches the gum health compound comprises retinol and the composition further comprises Pal-KTTKS (copending application, claim 12).
Regarding claim 15, the copending application and Delgado together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The copending application teaches a kit comprising the leave-on oral care composition and a delivery carrier (copending application, claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, the copending application and Delgado together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The copending application teaches the delivery carrier from the same claimed list (copending application, claim 15).
Regarding claim 20, the copending application and Delgado together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, the copending application does not specify the mucoadhesive polymer comprises hyaluronic acid. Delgado, however, teaches the composition can comprise vitamins, humectants, or mixtures thereof (Delgado, claim 28), and teaches humectants include hyaluronic acid (i.e., “c”; Delgado, page 16, lines 3-15). Delgado further teaches hyaluronic acid has a molecular weight generally greater than 1000 KDa (i.e., 1,000,000 Da; Delgado, page 1, lines 18-24), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). As above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed invention to include hyaluronic acid as the mucoadhesive polymer, because the copending application does not specify which polymer should be used, while Delgado teaches hyaluronic acid acts as a humectant that retains moisture (Delgado, page 16, lines 3-15) and that promotes processes during wound healing (Delgado, page 4, lines 19-23), suggesting improved wound healing.
Modified/Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado (WO 2013139965 A2). The reference was cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Delgado teaches a dermopharmaceutical composition (Delgado, abstract) which can be used to treat gingivitis (i.e., an oral care composition for gum health; Delgado, page 7, lines 31-32) and which can be a leave-on formulation (Delgado, page 13, line 25). Delgado teaches the composition can comprise retinyl palmitate (i.e., “a”, a retinyl ester and gum health compound as defined by the instant specification, page 10, line 3; Delgado, page 18, line 13). Delgado teaches the composition can comprise vitamins, humectants, or mixtures thereof (Delgado, claim 28), and teaches humectants include hyaluronic acid (i.e., “c”; Delgado, page 16, lines 3-15). Delgado teaches the composition can comprise Matrixyl® (INCI: palmitoyl peptapeptide-3 (i.e., “b”, a preferred commercially available pentapeptide with the sequence Pal-KTTKS as defined by the instant specification, page 18, lines 22-24; Delgado, page 17, line 32).
Delgado is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because both Delgado and the instant invention are in the same field of oral care compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention based on the teachings of Delgado under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 2, Delgado teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Delgado teaches a dermopharmaceutical composition (Delgado, abstract) which can be used to treat gingivitis (i.e., an oral care composition for gum health; Delgado, page 7, lines 31-32) and teaches the composition can comprise vitamins (i.e., gum health compounds from the claimed list; Delgado, page 15, line 10).
Regarding claim 3, Delgado teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Delgado does not teach a jasmonic acid compound, gibberellic acid, or a zeatin compound, and therefore reads on the composition as claimed which is free of these ingredients.
Regarding claim 4, Delgado teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Delgado does not teach the use of an abrasive and teaches compositions comprising a support from a list comprising silica and other supports (i.e., an abrasive as defined by the instant specification, page 26, line 3). Therefore, the abrasive is an optional embodiment in the composition of Delgado, and reads on the composition as claimed which is free of an abrasive.
Regarding claim 6, Delgado teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. Delgado teaches the composition can comprise vitamin A (i.e., a vitamin from the claimed list; Delgado, page 17, line 11).
Regarding claim 7, Delgado teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Delgado teaches the composition can comprise retinyl palmitate (i.e., a retinyl ester from the claimed list; Delgado, page 18, line 13).
Regarding claim 11, Delgado teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Delgado does not measure a viscosity consistency coefficient or Mucoadhesion index. The U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the exact same ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Regarding claim 13, Delgado teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Delgado teaches the composition can comprise Matrixyl® (INCI: palmitoyl peptapeptide-3 (i.e., a preferred commercially available pentapeptide with the sequence Pal-KTTKS as defined by the instant specification, page 18, lines 22-24; Delgado, page 17, line 32) and retinol (Delgado, page 18, line 13).
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado (WO 2013139965 A2). The reference was cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 20, Delgado teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Delgado teaches the composition can comprise vitamins, humectants, or mixtures thereof (Delgado, claim 28), and teaches humectants include hyaluronic acid (i.e., “c”; Delgado, page 16, lines 3-15). Delgado further teaches hyaluronic acid has a molecular weight generally greater than 1000 KDa (i.e., 1,000,000 Da; Delgado, page 1, lines 18-24), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Delgado is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because both Delgado and the instant invention are in the same field of oral care compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention based on the teachings of Delgado under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 5, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado (WO 2013139965 A2) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 11, 13, and 20, further in view of Prencipe (US 20170100312 A1; IDS reference, 03/23/2023). The references were cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 5, Delgado teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Delgado teaches the composition can be used to treat gingivitis (Delgado, page 7, lines 31-32), but does not specifically teach a gum health compound which is a metal ion source. Prencipe teaches a dentifrice composition (i.e., an oral care composition; Prencipe, abstract) comprising a source of zinc oxide (Prencipe, page 8, table 1) as an antiplaque agent (Prencipe, page 1, paragraph 0009), and teaches a 10 minute treatment with the composition (i.e., a leave-on composition; Prencipe, page 8, paragraph 0106).
Delgado and Principe are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Delgado, Principe, and the instant invention are in the same field of leave on oral care compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Delgado to include an antiplaque agent as taught by Prencipe, because both references teach a composition for oral care, and Delgado teaches the use of dermopharmaceutical acceptable excipients (Delgado, page 14, line 13), while Prencipe teaches that it is known in the art to use zinc oxide in such compositions (Delgado, page 1, paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 12, Delgado teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Delgado teaches the use of dermopharmaceutical acceptable excipients (Delgado, page 14, line 13), but does not specifically teach a fluoride. Prencipe, however, teaches a dentifrice composition comprising sodium fluoride (i.e., a fluoride; Prencipe, page 8, table 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Delgado to include an antiplaque agent as taught by Prencipe, because both references teach a composition for oral care, and Delgado teaches the use of dermopharmaceutical acceptable excipients (Delgado, page 14, line 13), while Prencipe teaches that fluoride ion sources are useful in such compositions as an anti-caries agent (Delgado, page 6, paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 15, Delgado teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Delgado teaches the composition can be incorporated into cosmetic or dermopharmaceutical delivery systems with an acceptable carrier (Delgado, page 11, lines 18-22), and teaches such delivery systems are known in the art (Delgado, page 13, lines 1-2). Prencipe further teaches the composition can be formulated into a delivery form (i.e., a kit as claimed) and can be applied by film or strip (i.e., delivery carriers; Prencipe, page 8, paragraph 0101). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Delgado to include a delivery system as taught by Prencipe, because both references teach a composition for oral care, and Delgado teaches delivery systems are known in the art (Delgado, page 13, lines 1-2), while Prencipe teaches the delivery system as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Delgado and Prencipe together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 15. As above, Prencipe teaches the composition can be applied by film or strip (i.e., delivery carriers from the claimed list; Prencipe, page 8, paragraph 0101). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Delgado to include a delivery system as taught by Prencipe, because both references teach a composition for oral care, and Delgado teaches delivery systems are known in the art (Delgado, page 13, lines 1-2), while Prencipe teaches the delivery system as claimed.
Conclusion
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 CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 ET.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613