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. Priority The instant application is a 371 National Stage Entry of PCT/US2021/025231 filed on March 31, 2021 which claims benefit to domestic provisional application No. 63/002,727 filed on March 31, 2020. Status of Claims Acknowledgement is made of original ( 2-3, 9, 12, 19-20 ), amended ( 1, 23 ), previously presented (5-8, 11, 13-16, 18, 21-22, 24) cancelled ( 4, 10, 17, 25-35 ), and new ( 36-41 ) claims filed on September 16, 2025 . Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-16, 18-24, 36-41 are pending in instant application. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9, 14, 18-22, 36-40 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 7 - 8, 11-13, 15-16, 23 - 24, 41 are presently considered. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed on April 6, 2023 and June 17, 2025 ha ve been considered except where lined through. Elected Species The elected species is understood as follows: CAS# 2719778-07-9 Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9, 14, 18-22, 36-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 16, 2025. C laims 1, 7 - 8, 11-13, 15-16, 23 - 24, 41 are presently considered. Following extensive search and examination, the originally elected species has been deemed free of the prior art. Per MPEP § 803.02(III) If the examiner determines that the elected species is allowable over the prior art, the examination of the Markush claim will be extended. If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the Markush claim with respect to a nonelected species, the Markush claim shall be rejected; claims to the nonelected species would still be held withdrawn from further consideration. The prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all nonelected species. Accordingly, Examination was extended to a non-elected species encompassed by claim 1b : Genus Presently Examined Following extensive search and examination, the non-elected species was deemed anticipated and/or obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. Per MPEP § 803.02(III), claims directed to other nonelected species have been withdrawn. During the search and examination of the originally elected species, art pertinent to other non-elected species was incidentally discovered. Although examination has not been extended beyond the non-elected species identified above per MPEP § 803.02, as a courtesy to the Applicant, this art has been applied below. 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. Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 11-13, 15, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rouvier et. al. Rouvier teaches CAS# 33598-30-0 (see Rouvier at p. 454 Compound XIX), which corresponds to instant Formula I when X3 is CR3C, R3C is H, X4 is CR4, R4 is H, X5 is CR5, R5 is H, L is a bond, n is 0, R7 and R8 are H, R9 is C1-4 alkyl specifically methyl, R10 is , r is 0, and R11-R18 are H. Rouvier CAS# 33598-30-0 Formula I The prior art differs from the instant claims as follows: CAS# 33598-30-0 differs from Formula I only by differences of -(CH2)- or positional isomers. However , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the prior art for at least the following reason(s): Regarding isomerism, per MPEP § 2144.09, c ompounds which are isomers are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties . In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). Regarding changes of - (CH2)-, per MPEP § 2144.09, c ompounds that differ by -(CH2)- are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, one skilled in the art could arrive at a species of Formula I from CAS# 33598-30-0 via isomeric and/or -(CH2)- changes (pyrrolidine connectivity change, additional methylene). Claim s 1, 7-8, 11-13, 15, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STN . When L is a bond and n is 0 or 1, the claims are rendered obvious by STN, wh ere the structures differ only by (CH2) or isomerism. STN teaches CAS# 1511266-62-8 which corresponds with Formula I when X3-X5 are CH, R1/R2 are H, L is a bond, n is 1, R6 is H, R7 and R8 are C1-4 alkyl specifically methyl, R10 is , r is 0, R11-R13 are H. The structure differs from Formula I in that there is no methylene before the R10 ring (wherein R9 would be H) (a difference of -CH2-). CAS# 1511266-62-8 Formula I STN also teaches CAS# 1776608-78-6 which corresponds to Formula I when X3-X5 are CH, R1/R2 are H, L is a bond, R6 is H, R7 and R8 are C1-4 alkyl specifically methyl, R10 is , r is 0, R11-R13 are H. The structure differs from Formula I in that n is not 0 or 1, it’s 2 (a change of -CH2-), and the ring connects at a different carbon (isomeric change). CAS# 1776608-78-6 Formula I The prior art differs from the instant claims as follows: The taught structures differ from Formula I only b y difference s of –(CH2)- or positional isomers. However , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the prior art for at least the following reason(s): Regarding isomerism, per MPEP § 2144.09, c ompounds which are isomers are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties . In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). Regarding changes of - (CH2)-, per MPEP § 2144.09, c ompounds that differ by -(CH2)- are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, one skilled in the art could arrive at a species of Fomrula I from the structures taught by STN via isomeric and/or -(CH2)- changes (amide connectivity change, methylene connectivity change, additional methylene). Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 11-13, 15, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/169153 A1 to Cheruvallath et. al. When instant L is O and n is 1, the claims are rendered obvious by Cheruvallath , which then only differ s by isomeric amide connectivity. Regarding instant claim s 1 , 23 , Cheruvallath teaches Formula 1, which notably differs from instant Formula I by amide connectivity. Generic Formula Comparison Exemplary Compound Comparison Cheruvallath also teaches compound species such as (R)-3-(2-chlorophenoxy)-2,2-dimethyl-N-(1-methylpyrrolidin-3-yl)propanamide also known as CAS# 2375770-16-2 (see Cheruvallath at claim 35 p. 245 lines 25-26) and (R)-3-((3-ethylpyridin-2-yl)oxy)-2.2-dimethyl-N-(1-methylpyrrolidin-3-yl)propanamide CAS# 2375770-34-4 (see Cheruvallath at claim 35 p. 245 lines 18-19) which differ from instant Formula I only by amide and methylene connectivity. Cheruvallath CAS# 2375770-16-2 Cheruvallath CAS# 2375770-34-4 Further regarding claim 1 and , instant R11, R13-R18 correspond to Cheruvallath R9-12, 15-16 ( Cheruvallath claims 20, 23-25 ). Instant R12 corresponds to R13 or R14 when X is NR ( Cheruvallath claim 26). Instant r corresponds with Cheruvallath s ( Cheruvallath claim 33-34). Regarding instant claim 7 and X3-X5, instant X3-X5 correspond to US’457 X1-X3. The structural limitations substantially overlap ( Cheruvallath claims 2, 7). Regarding instant claims 8, 11-12 and R1/R2 and R3C/R4 and R5, instant R1 corresponds to Cheruvallath R5, instant R2 corresponds to Cheruvallath R4, instant R3c corresponds to Cheruvallath R3, instant R4 corresponds to Cheruvallath R2, instant R5 corresponds to Cheruvallath R1. The structural limitations substantially overlap ( Cheruvallath claims 8-14). Regarding instant claim 13 and R7/R8, instant R7 corresponds to Cheruvallath R6, instant R8 corresponds to Cheruvallath R6. The structural limitations substantially overlap ( Cheruvallath claims 15-16). Regarding instant claim 15 and R9 , when instant R9 is H, the methylene reads on Cheruvallath Formula 1. Regarding instant claim 24 and a composition, Cheruvallath claims a composition or combination comprising a compound ( Cheruvallath claim 36). The prior art differs from the instant claims as follows: Species taught by Cheruvallath differ from instant formula or species by changes of isomerism or –(CH2)-. However , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the prior art for at least the following reason(s): Regarding isomerism, per MPEP § 2144.09, c ompounds which are isomers are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties . In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). Regarding changes of - (CH2)-, per MPEP § 2144.09, c ompounds that differ by -(CH2)- are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, one skilled in the art could arrive at a species of Formula I from the structures taught by Cheruvallath via isomeric and/or -(CH2)- changes (amide connectivity change, methylene connectivity change or additional methylene). 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 . Claim s 1, 7-8, 11-13, 15, 23-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1- 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,045,457 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding instant claim s 1 , 23 , the claims are drawn to obvious isomeric or structurally similar variant species such as: Instant Application Formula I US’457 Claim 1 Formula 1 Exemplary Subgenus Exemplary Subgenus wherein Ra/Rb are C1-C3 alkyl or form a C3-4 cycloalkan-1,1-diyl, Rc is H or optionally substituted C1-4 alkyl Instant Claim 23 p. 14 lines 5-6 “Example 103” US’457 claim 18 col. 240 lines 1-2 “Example 182” When US’457 L is NH (US’457 claim 9-10), the claimed generic formulas are largely isomeric. When US’457 r is 0 (US’457 claim 16), the generic formulas differ by –(CH2)-. The above comparisons are non-exhaustive. Further regarding claim 1 and , instant R11, R13-R18 correspond to US’457 R9-12, 15-16 (US’457 claims 11, 12). Instant R12 corresponds to R13 or R14 when X is NR (US’457 claims 13-15). Instant r corresponds with US’457 s (US’457 claim 17). Regarding instant claim 7 and X3-X5, instant X3-X5 correspond to US’457 X1-X3. The structural limitations substantially overlap (US’457 claims 2, 4, 13). Regarding instant claims 8, 11-12 and R1/R2 and R3C/R4 and R5, instant R1 corresponds to US’457 R5 (US’457 claim 6) , instant R2 corresponds to US’457 R4, instant R3c corresponds to R3, instant R4 corresponds to US’457 R2, instant R5 corresponds to US’457 R1. The structural limitations substantially overlap (US’457 claims 3, 5). Regarding instant claim 13 and R7/R8, instant R7 corresponds to US’457 R6, instant R8 corresponds to US’457 R6. The structural limitations substantially overlap (US’457 claims 7-8). Regarding instant claim 15 and R9 , when instant R9 is H, the methylene reads on US’457 Formula 1. Regarding instant claim 24 and a composition, US’457 claims a composition or combination comprising a compound (US’457 claims 19-20). The instant claims differ from the patented claims as follows: US’457 and instant generic formulas and largely differ by isomeric or -(CH2)- differences. However, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to arrive at an instantly claimed isomeric species variation from the genus and species claimed in US’457 with a reasonable expectation of success, because per MPEP § 2144.09, c ompounds which are isomers are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties . In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). In addition or in the alternative, per MPEP § 2144.09, c ompounds that differ by -(CH2)- are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, one skilled in the art could arrive at instantly claimed Example 103 from US’457 claimed Example 182 via isomeric and/or -(CH2)- changes (amide connectivity change, p yrrolidine connectivity change, and methyl to methylene connectivity change or omit methyl/add methylene). Claim s 1, 7-8, 11-13, 15, 23-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,005,054 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. US’054 claims compounds overlapping with US’457 in methods of treating. The instant rejection thus uses the same logic as the above rejection because the claims are drawn to obvious isomeric or structurally similar variant species such as: Instant Application Formula I US’054 Exemplary Subgenus Exemplary Subgenus Instant Claim 23 p. 14 lines 5-6 “Example 103” US’054 claim 18 col. 240 lines 1-2 “Example 182” Provisional NSDP Rejections Claim s 1, 7-8, 11-13, 15, 23-24, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 -3, 7-8, 15-16, 35 -36 of copending Application No. 18/657,004 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding instant claim s 1 , 23 , t he applications are drawn to obvious isomeric or structurally similar variant species or subgenus such as: Instant Application Formula I App’004 Formula 1 Exemplary Subgenus Exemplary Subgenus wherein Ri is H or optionally substituted C1-4 alkyl Instant Claim 23 p. 10 lines 6-7 “Example 29” App’004 Claim 35 p. 9 lines 13-14 “Example 12” The above comparison s are non-exhaustive. Regarding instant claim 7 and X3-X5, the structural limitations correspond and substantially overlap with App’004 claims 2, 7. Regarding instant claims 8, 11-12 and R1/R2 and R3C/R4 and R5, the structural limitations correspond and substantially overlap with App’004 claims 3, 8. Regarding instant claim 13 and R7/R8, the structural limitations correspond and substantially overlap with App’004 claims 15-16. Regarding instant claim 15 and R9 , when R9 is H, it corresponds to App’004 Formula 1 when r is 1, a methylene. Regarding instant claim 24 and a composition, App’004 claims a composition (see App’004 claim 36). The copending claims differ from the instant claims as follows: The gena of instant Formula I and Appp’004 Formula 1 differ in isomeric amide connectivity. However, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to arrive at an instantly claimed isomeric species variation from the genus and species claimed in App’004 with a reasonable expectation of success , because per MPEP § 2144.09, c ompounds which are isomers are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties . In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). In addition or in the alternative, per MPEP § 2144.09, c ompounds that differ by -(CH2)- are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, one skilled in the art could arrive at instantly claimed Example 29 from App’004 claimed Example 12 via isomeric and/or -(CH2)- changes (amide connectivity change, piperidine connectivity change, and methyl to methylene connectivity change or omit methyl/add methylene). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim s 1, 7-8, 11-13, 15, 23-24, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 -2 , 5-6 , 8 , 10, 12, 14 -15, 17, 20-22, 24-25, 27- 28 , 33 of copending Application No. 18/852,426 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding instant claim s 1 , 23 , the applications are drawn to obvious isomeric or structurally similar variant species and subgena such as: Instant Application Formula I App’426 Formula 1 Exemplary Subgenus Exemplary Subgenus wherein L is O or a CH2 (App’426 claim 14) , R7/R8 are H, C1-4 alkyl, or join to form a C3-6 cycloalkylidene , n is 0 or 1 (App’426 claim 27) , Ri is H or C1-3 alkyl Instant Claim 23 p. 10 line 8 “Example 30” App’426 Claim 28 p. 7 line 16 “Example 18” The above comparisons are non-exhaustive. Further regarding claim 1 and , instant R12 corresponds to App’426 R13, instant R 11, R 13-18 correspond to App’426 R9-12, R14-15 (see App’426 claims 20-22, 24, 25) . Regarding instant claim 7 and X3-X5, App’4 26 Formula 1 reads on an aromatic ring when X1 is N or CR1, corresponding to instant X5 (see App’4 26 claim s 1 , 5 ). Regarding instant claims 8, 11-12 and R1/R2 and R3C/R4 and R5, instant R1 and R2 correspond to App’4 26 R4 and R5 (see App’426 claims 10, 12) . Instant R3C corresponds to App’4 26 R3 (see App’426 claim 8) , instant R4 corresponds to App’ 426 R2 (see App’426 claim 6) , instant R5 corresponds to App’4 26 R1 (see App’426 claim 2) . The structural limitations substantially overlap. Regarding instant claim 13 and R7/R8, instant R7 and R8 correspond to App’ 426 R7 and R8. The structural limitations substantially overlap (see App’426 claims 15, 17). Regarding instant claim 15 and R9 , when instant R9 is H, the resulting structure differs by a methylene from App’426 Formula 1. Regarding instant claim 24 and a composition, App’426 claims a method of administering a compound of Formula I to treat a list of diseases (App’426 claim 33). The copending claims differ from the instant claims as follows: App’426 does not specify a composition, and the generic formula differ in isomeric or -(CH2)- changes. However, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to arrive at an instantly claimed isomeric species variation from the genus and species claimed in App’426, because per MPEP § 2144.09, c ompounds which are isomers are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties . In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). In addition or in the alternative, per MPEP § 2144.09, c ompounds that differ by -(CH2)- are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, one skilled in the art could arrive at instantly claimed Example 30 from App’426 claimed Example 18 via isomeric and/or -(CH2)- changes (amide connectivity change, methylene connectivity change, piperidine/methyl connectivity change, and omit bond for CH2/CH3 change – a suitable alternative for R7/R8 claimed in App’426 claim 1 p. 2). In addition, one skilled in the art would readily appreciate in order to treat a disease, one would need to formulate the compound into a composition for administration to a subject. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 16, 41 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and a terminal disclaimer filed over copending applications. In the original search of the elected species and broadened genus , no prior art was found for the below genus (wherein X3-X5 are CH, and R10 is azetidine-1-ylmethyl). Conclusion Claims 16, 41 are objected to. Claims 7-8, 11-13, 15, 23-24 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SOPHIA J REILLY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5669 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT KORTNEY KLINKEL can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5239 . 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. /S.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1627 /JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613