DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Receipt and consideration of Applicant’s amended claim set and Applicant’s arguments/remarks submitted on November 26, 2025 are acknowledged.
All rejections/objections not explicitly maintained in the instant office action have been withdrawn per Applicant’s claim amendments and/or persuasive arguments. Applicant’s claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections set forth below.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-16, and 18-20 are pending and under consideration in this action. Claims 5, 7, 8, and 17 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 26, 2025 has been entered.
Change in Examiner
The examiner for your application in the USPTO has changed. Examiner Monica Shin can be reached at 571-272-7138.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1, 6, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per MPEP 608.01(m), aside from at the end of the claim and in abbreviations, periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims. Thus, the periods used at the end of each letter when listing the elements/limitations in claims 1, 6, and 14 should be replaced with, for example, a closed parentheses. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 15, because claim 14 recites both the steps and list of ingredients under step (a) alphabetically, it renders claim 15 unclear as to whether “wherein b) and/or c)” in claim 15 is referring to the ingredients “b” and “c” recited in step (a), or steps “b” and “c” (the preparing and forming steps) from claim 14. Examiner kindly suggests amending claim 14 so that either the steps or the list of ingredients under step (a) are listed using a different listing method (e.g., roman numerals) to better differentiate the elements for subsequent dependent claims.
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.
Claims 3, 12, and 16 are 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 3 recites that the weight ratio of gel-forming agent d) to the combined weight of water f) and glycerol g) in the formed body is in the range of 1:2 to 1:20. Claim 3, however, depends from claim 1, which recites that the range of d) to the combined weight of f) and g) is from 1:6 to 1:8. Thus, claim 3 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends because it broadens the scope of the claim upon which it depends.
Both claims 12 and 16 recite that the composition may comprise 0 wt.% of one or more fillers. However, claim 1 positively recites that the composition comprises one or more fillers indicating a non-zero amount of filler(s) is required. Thus, claims 12 and 16, by allowing the composition to have 0 wt.% of one or more filler fails to include all the limitation of the claim upon which they each depend from and broadens the scope of the claim upon which they each depend from.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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 1-4, 6, 9-13, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanikanti et al. (Kanikanti) (US 2013/0197006 A1; published Aug. 1, 2013) and Cleverly et al. (Cleverly) (US 2015/0190417 A1; published Jul. 9, 2015).
Kanikanti discloses soft chewables especially suitable for delivering active ingredients to animals (abstract).
With regards to Claims 1-4, 6, 11, 12, and 16, Kanikanti discloses that the soft chewable comprises (abstract; para.0020):
(a) a pharmaceutically effective amount of at least one active ingredient in an amount of from about 0.1 wt.% to about 35 wt.% of the soft chewable (para.0021, 0134);
(b) a flavoring agent in an amount of from about 1 wt.% to about 40 wt.% of the soft chewable (para.0022, 0040);
(c) a disintegrant, such as croscarmellose sodium (reading on a gel-forming agent), in an amount of from about 10 wt.% to about 60 wt.% of the soft chewable (para.0023, 0033);
(d) a humectant, which comprises glycerin (also known as glycerol), in an amount of from about 5 wt.% to about 50 wt.% of the soft chewable (para.0024, 0042-0044);
(e) a binder, such as polyvinylpyrrolidone, in an amount of from about 0.3 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the soft chewable (para.0025, 0054, 0055);
(f) an antioxidant (para.0026);
(g) optionally a preservative (para.0027); and
(h) water in an amount of from about 2.5 wt.% to about 20 wt.% (para.0028, 0056, 0057).
The soft chewable may also include sweeteners, such as xylitol (reading on fillers) (para.0168). Kanikanti, exemplifies a formulation comprising sweetener in an amount of about 0.002 wt.% of the chewable tablet (Table 1, Example 1 where the sweetener, sodium saccharin is used in an amount of 4.2 mg in a chewable formulation that is a total weight of 2129.4 mg).
With regards to the weight ratio of gel-forming agent d) to the combined weight of water f) and glycerol g) and the weight ratio of water f) to glycerol g), as discussed above, the croscarmellose may be present in an amount from about 10 wt.% to about 60 wt.%, the water may be present in an amount from about 2.5 wt.% to about 20 wt.%, and the glycerol (humectant) may be present in an amount ranging from about 5 wt.% to about 50 wt.%. Thus, Kanikanti encompasses wherein the ratio of gel-forming agent d) to the combined weight of water f) and glycerol g) is 1:6, and wherein the ratio of water f) to glycerol g) is 20:80 (e.g., when croscarmellose is present in amount of about 10 wt.%, water is present in an amount of about 12 wt.%, and glycerol is present in an amount of about 48 wt.%).
With regards to all of the aforementioned prior art disclosed amounts and ranges, 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.
With regards to Claims 9 and 13, the at least one active ingredient includes any pharmaceutical agent known in the pharmaceutical arts that is suitable for oral administration, including antiparasitic agents (para.0121). In various embodiments, the soft chewable is for administration to dogs, cats, and other companion animals (para.0136). Kanikanti exemplifies the use of praziquantel (reading on orally administrable systemically active veterinary pharmaceutical) as the active ingredient (para.0179).
With regards to Claim 10, the flavoring agent may be chicken liver powder, pork liver powder, beef, ham, fish, or rawhide-derived products (para.0142).
With regards to Claim 20, the soft chewable disintegrates in less than about 20 minutes (para.0029).
While Kanikanti discloses overlapping amounts for water and glycerol in the formulation, Cleverly is relied upon for motivation for optimization of the amounts of such components. Furthermore, Kanikanti does not appear to explicitly disclose the water activity of the chewable formulation (Claim 18). Cleverly is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Cleverly are set forth herein below.
Cleverly discloses soft chewable tablets that do not harden on storage and are resistant to microbial contamination (para.0291). Such tablets may be administered to dogs (para.0387, 0552).
Cleverly discloses that the chewable formulation comprises one or more humectants (para.0400). Humectants may be used to reduce the water activity. Humectants bind any water, if present, to themselves, so that free moisture is unavailable for microbial contamination or chemical breakdown of active ingredient. Humectants may also prevent the product from drying out. Cleverly discloses that glycerin (glycerol) is known to function as humectants and reduce the water activity of chewable treats. With the inclusion glycerin, it may not be necessary to include an antimicrobial agent in the formulation to prevent microbial contamination (para.0404). Cleverly discloses that such chewable formulation is known to comprise between 0.2-90% by weight humectant (para.0406).
Cleverly discloses that the chewable formulation has a low water activity (aw). A low water activity can be provided by including a sufficient amount of one or more humectants in the formulation (para.0525). The chewable formulation may have a water activity of less than 0.93 (para.0526). In an embodiment, shelf stable chewable formulation has a water activity of from about 0.1 to about 0.65 (para.0024).
With regards to Claim 18, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Kanikanti with the teachings of Cleverly, and adjust the amount of humectants (e.g., glycerol) in Kanikanti’s chewable formulation so that the water activity of the formulation is less than 0.93, such as from about 0.1 to about 0.65 as disclosed in Cleverly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as such a range is known in the art for soft chewable formulations that have reduced or no microbial contamination or chemical breakdown of active ingredient, is shelf stable, and does not dry out. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as both Kanikanti and Cleverly are directed to soft chewable formulations for veterinary use, and Cleverly’s disclosed range of water activity is art recognized and conventional for such formulations.
Furthermore, with regards to the amount of the water and glycerol, and in turn the claimed ratios involving such components, in light of Cleverly’s disclosure, the amount of glycerol and water in the composition are clearly result effective parameters that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably would expect success. It would have been customary for one of ordinary skill to determine the optimal amount of each ingredient to add in order to best achieve the desired results, in particular the amount of water activity so that there is minimal or no microbial contamination even without the inclusion of an antimicrobial agent in the formulation, minimal to no chemical breakdown of active ingredients, be shelf stable, and to prevent the product from drying out. In light of Cleverly’s disclosure about the relationship between humectants (e.g., glycerol), water, and water activity, and Cleverly’s and Kanikanti’s disclosure of known amounts of glycerol and water for soft chewable veterinary formulations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results, e.g., minimal or no microbial contamination even without the inclusion of an antimicrobial agent in the formulation, minimal to no chemical breakdown of active ingredients, be shelf stable, and to prevent the product from drying out. Furthermore, from Cleverly’s disclosure of the purpose of humectants such as glycerol, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious and would have been motivated to try greater amounts of glycerol compared to water to achieve the low water activity, minimize microbial contamination, minimize chemical breakdown of active ingredient, and improve the shelf life of the composition. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanikanti et al. (Kanikanti) (US 2013/0197006 A1; published Aug. 1, 2013) and Cleverly et al. (Cleverly) (US 2015/0190417 A1; published Jul. 9, 2015) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9-13, 16, 18, and 20 set forth above, further in view of Isele (US 2006/0222684 A1; published Oct. 5, 2006).
The teachings of Kanikanti and Cleverly and the motivation for their combination as they apply to Claims 1-4, 6, 9-13, 16, 18, and 20 are set forth above and incorporated herein.
The combined teachings of Kanikanti and Cleverly do not appear to explicitly disclose the production process of the chewable formulation as recited in Claims 14 and 15, or the hardness of the body as recited in Claim 19. Isele is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Isele are set forth herein below.
Isele discloses palatable ductile chewable veterinary composition for oral administration. The composition is capable of killing endo- and ecto-parasites and/or can be used for treating prophylactic of curative animal diseases, and is useful for the treatment of warm-blooded non-human animal, such as dogs and cats (abstract).
Isele discloses that the product is “soft”, which is characterized as a product that is not as hard and crunch as, for example, a cornflake and on the other hand is not as ductile as, for example, a marshmallow. The desired ductility/hardness lies somewhere in between, and ideally lies between 6-12 N (para.0159). Isele discloses that hard and crunch products are especially disadvantageous if one intends to treat older dogs and cats because most of these old animals suffer from periodontal disease. Animals suffering from periodontitis avoid eating hard and crunchy products because they cause them pain (para.0160).
Isele discloses that in order to achieve chewables that are highly palatable ductile product, one has to modify the process and secure that the extrudate is not heated during the whole extrusion process because this leads to hard and crunchy products, to losses of active ingredient, and especially to a decrease of the palatability. The highly palatable ductile chewable veterinary composition may conveniently be carried out in an extruder. A mixture of all of the ingredients, including water, is fed through the hopper onto a rotating, reciprocating screw. The material moves along the screw towards the dip. During this process, its temperature is cooled down constantly by means of external coolers around the outside of the barrel and by the shearing action of the screw. The cooling process is controlled so that the temperature of the extrudate during the whole extrusion process does not exceed peak temperature of 40oC. Isele discloses that it has been found that ideally the product is extruded at or near room temperature, and the extruder is cooled down below room temperature, preferably to 5-10oC (para. 0165).
It is then conveyed through the metering zone, where homogenization occurs to the end of the screw. The homogenized material at the tip is then pressed through a form-determining die to obtain shaped articles of the desired size. The simplest way is cutting the extrudate that leaves the extruder into equal pieces of the desired size (para.0166).
With regards to the hardness of the body as recited in Claim 19, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to further combine the teachings of Kanikanti and Cleverly with the teachings of Isele and have the soft chewable formulation of the combined teachings of Kanikanti and Cleverly have a hardness between 6-12 N. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had been motivated to do so as such a range is disclosed as being ideal for veterinary chewable formulations, improving compliance particularly for older animals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Kanikanti, Cleverly, and Isele are all directed to chewable veterinary formulations, and Isele discloses that such formulations are known to have a hardness value between 6-12 N.
With regards to the production process of the chewable formulation as recited in Claims 14-15, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to further combine the teachings of Kanikanti and Cleverly with the teachings of Isele, and try Isele’s production method carried out in an extruder (generally mixing all components of the formulation, and forming the product by extruding through an extruder, all with a cooling process so the whole extrusion process does not exceed peak temperature of 40oC). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as such a method is known to produce highly palatable ductile products, minimize losses of active ingredients, and reduce the decrease of palatability. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Kanikanti, Cleverly, and Isele are all directed to chewable veterinary formulations, and Isele discloses art recognized and conventional methods for producing such formulations.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 3, 2025 have been fully considered. It is noted that new rejections citing a new combination of references are set forth above. Applicant’s arguments relevant to the new rejections are addressed herein below.
(1) Applicant argues there is a critical relationship that too low of a weight ratio of water to glycerol undermines structural integrity, while too high a ratio undermines chewability. Applicant argues that with the weight ratio of water to glycerol from 10:90 to 30:70, the structural integrity of the gel-like structure is particularly high, and when the weight ratio of water to glycerol is below 5:95, the integrity of the gel-like structure of the formed body can crumble, and if the weight ratio of water to glycerol is more than 35:65, the chewability is affected.
With regards to Applicant’s argument (1), the traversal argument is not found persuasive. There does not appear to be data to support Applicant’s assertions of the criticality of the claimed ratio of water to glycerol. Although Applicant points to, for example, paragraph 83 of the instant Specification, the paragraph merely concludes such properties. There does not appear to be experimental data to support the conclusions and Applicant’s assertions. In order for unexpected results to be of probative value, it must be established by factual evidence supported by an appropriate affidavit of declaration. See MPEP 716.01(c)(I).
It is further noted that Example 7 in the instant Specification (p.39) appears to show the hardness of gels formulated using a ternary mixture of croscarmellose-glycerol-water mixtures, wherein the ratio of water to glycerol was varied from 10:90 to 30:70, and a ratio of croscarmellose sodium to (water + glycerol) of 1:7 was used. Such ratios are all within the claimed ratios. 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).
Furthermore, it is noted that the data of Example 7 (p.39 of Spec.) are not commensurate in scope with the claims as the Example is looking at the properties of the ternary mixture, not the formulation as claimed. It is unclear if the results shown for the ternary mixture would also be seen with the addition of other formulation components (e.g., binder) and/or specific production method parameters (e.g., temperature).
(2) Applicant argues that gel-forming agent is present in a specific ratio to the combined weight of water and glycerol in the instant claims, which results in a particularly stable and robust network structure. Thus, Applicant argues the claimed ranges are critical and achieve beneficial properties.
With regards to Applicant’s argument (2), the traversal argument is not found persuasive. While Example 7 in the instant Specification appears to show the hardness of gels formulated using a ternary mixture of croscarmellose-glycerol-water mixtures, wherein the ratio of water to glycerol was varied from 10:90 to 30:70, and a ratio of croscarmellose sodium to (water + glycerol) of 1:7 was used. Such ratios are all within the claimed ratios. 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).
Furthermore, it is noted that the data of Example 7 (p.39 of Spec.) are not commensurate in scope with the claims as the Example is looking at the properties of the ternary mixture, not the formulation as claimed. It is unclear if the results shown for the ternary mixture would also be seen with the addition of other formulation components (e.g., binder) and/or specific production method parameters (e.g., temperature).
(3) Applicant argues the combination of croscarmellose as a gel-forming agent and polyvinylpyrrolidone as a binding agent with the claimed ratios led to advantageous properties of the claimed formed bodies by creating a soft, robust gel-like structure with a particularly long shelf-life and good disintegration properties.
Applicant further argues that the claimed bodies exhibit a lower hardness, displaying a maximum hardness of 3N wherein Kanikanti et al. (US 2019/0110985) maintains a hardness of approximately 4 to 5 N over time (comparing Kanikanti’s Figure 5 to instant application’s Figure 6).
With regards to Applicant’s argument (3), the traversal argument is not found persuasive. With regards to establishing the criticality of the claimed ratios, as discussed above, as noted in 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). The instant Specification (e.g., Example 7, p.39 of Spec.) only tests ratios of water to glycerol and ratios of croscarmellose to (water + glycerol) that are within the claimed range.
With regards to the selection of croscarmellose and polyvinylpyrrolidone, in the new rejections set forth above, Kanikanti (US 2013/0197006 A1) explicitly discloses using polyvinylpyrrolidone as the binder (e.g., para.0055). Kanikanti also discloses the inclusion of croscarmellose sodium (e.g., para.0033, 0089). It is noted that croscarmellose sodium is disclosed among a limited list of disintegrants that one of ordinary skill in the art can clearly envisage the selection and inclusion of croscarmellose sodium.
Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant does not appear to establish the criticality of the inclusion of polyvinylpyrrolidone and croscarmellose as there does not appear to be any comparative data to demonstrate the properties of comparative formulations that do not include polyvinylpyrrolidone and/or croscarmellose.
Further, with regards to Applicant’s argument regarding the hardness, it is noted that the data is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. The instant claim 19, for example, recites that the formed body possesses a hardness ranging from 1.5 to 10 N.
Conclusion
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/MONICA A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616