DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 March 2026 has been entered, and the arguments presented therein have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Foreign Priority
Previously in the prosecution history, the examiner took the position that foreign priority application SG10202007118P does not appear to adequately support the claimed subject matter. In response, applicant provided an interim copy of the foreign priority documents on 31 October 2025, and provided arguments regarding this issue on page 8 of applicant’s response on 31 October 2025.
In response, the examiner takes the position that in the case of foreign priority, the foreign application must be for the same invention as the application in the United States. See MPEP 213, item (D). In this case, both the certified and the interim copies of the foreign priority document do not appear to be drawn to the same invention as that in the instant application at least because the order of the pages in the foreign priority documents differ from the order of the pages in the instant application.
As such, applicant’s arguments regarding the foreign priority documents are not persuasive.
Applicant does not appear to have addressed this issue in applicant’s response on 23 March 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) – Indefiniteness
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 21-24 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.
Claim 21 recites that the positively charged drug layer may comprise insulin. It is unclear how this claim limitation further limits the claimed subject matter. This is because the skilled artisan would have expected insulin to have been negatively charged at neutral pH. In support of this position, the examiner cites Backstrom et al. (US 2001/0003739 A1), paragraph 0032, which indicates that insulin has an isoelectric point of 5.5, which results in insulin having a negative charge at pH values higher than 5.5. Also see Zhang (“Studies of Insulin Transport Across Intestinal Epithelium Using Nano-Encapsulation for Oral Delivery” Thesis, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, 2018, pages i-xxi, 1-165, and various introductory pages), which is discussed in greater detail below and teaches an anionic insulin layer as of at least page 148. Specifically, the table at the top of page 148 indicates that the zeta potential (i.e. surface charge) is negative when insulin is the outer layer, indicating that insulin has a negative charge.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that claim 22, which depends upon claim 21, recites that the negatively charged polymers have a carboxyl functionality, e.g. of a deprotonated carboxylic acid group. The skilled artisan would have expected that at pH values below 5.5, the carboxyl groups of the recited polymer would have been protonated and therefore would have had a neutral charge. Therefore, pH values low enough for insulin to be positively charged are also low enough to render a carboxyl group containing polymer to be essentially neutral.
As such, it is unclear whether insulin is in the scope of claim 21 because the skilled artisan would not have expected insulin to have formed a positively charged layer.
For the purposes of examination under prior art, the examiner will proceed with examination with the understanding that insulin is not within the scope of claim 21. The examiner will examine claim 21 with the understanding that the claim is limited to insulin-like factors, growth factors, or hormonal peptides that are positively charged at neutral pH and/or have isoelectric points above that of neutral pH. Such active agents would have been capable of interacting electrostatically or ionically with a polymer with repeating carboxyl groups, wherein such a polymer would have been negatively charged at neutral pH.
Response to Arguments Regarding Indefiniteness Issue
Applicant has presented the following arguments regarding the above-applied indefiniteness issue, as of applicant’s response on 23 March 2026 (hereafter referred to as applicant’s arguments). Relevant text from applicant’s arguments on page 8 has been reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
254
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As an initial matter, the examiner does not dispute applicant’s position that (a) insulin has an isoelectric point of 5.5, and (b) insulin would have had a net positive charge at pH values below 5.5.
Nevertheless, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the above-reproduced paragraph fails to address the full scope of the examiner’s position. It is the examiner’s position that pH values low enough to cause insulin to be positively charged would also be low enough to cause the negatively charged polymeric layers to become neutrally charged. This is because pH values low enough to protonate insulin would also be low enough to protonate the carboxyl groups of the negatively charged layer to render said layer to be neutrally charged rather than negatively charged. This issue was discussed on the second paragraph of page 7 of the office action mailed on 22 December 2025 and does not appear to have been addressed by applicant’s arguments.
As such, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive at least because they do not address the full set of issues discussed by the examiner in the applied rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) – Failure to Limit Parent Claim
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites eleven coating layers. However, claim 26, which depends upon claim 1, recites more than five coating layers. As such, a particle with six coating layers would appear to be within the scope of claim 26, but not of claim 1 upon which it depends. As such, claim 26 fails to include all of the limitations required by claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Obviousness
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 10, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (“Studies of Insulin Transport Across Intestinal Epithelium Using Nano-Encapsulation for Oral Delivery” Thesis, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, 2018, pages i-xxi, 1-165, and various introductory pages).
Zhang is drawn to liposomes and insulin delivery, as of Zhang, pages ii-iii, title and abstract. Zhang provides an example of a liposome comprising multiple layers of insulin and chitosan on page 142, figure 41(a), reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
310
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also see Zhang, page 148, relevant table reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
322
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The above-indicated liposome has five alternating layers of chitosan and insulin surrounding the liposome. The outer layer is chitosan, which is positively charged. The active agent is insulin.
As to claim 1, the claim requires a drug load of at least 10%. Zhang appears to teach a drug load of at maximum between about 1% and 1.5%, as of Zhang, page 150, figure 45, relevant portion of figure reproduced below.
PNG
media_image4.png
254
804
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As such, Zhang fails to anticipate instant claim 1 for at least this reason.
Nevertheless, the teachings of Zhang in the above-reproduced figures indicate that an increase in the number of layers results in an increase of the loading percentage. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have optimized the number of layers in order to have increased the amount of active agent loaded in order to have reached the claimed requirement of at least 10 wt% loading. Optimization requires a reasonable expectation of success; see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the data in Zhang would appear to indicate that there would have been a reasonable expectation that increasing the number of layers would have resulted in an increase in the amount of active agent loaded. Additionally, the table at the top of page 148 of Zhang is understood by the examiner to provide motivation for the skilled artisan to have modified Zhang by optimizing the number of layers.
As to claim 1, the claim requires eleven coating layers. Zhang does not appear to teach this many coating layers. Nevertheless, addition of additional coating layers would appear to be an issue of routine optimization. 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, Zhang teaches the general conditions of a liposome coated with multiple alternating layers of chitosan and insulin, and suggests optimizing the number of layers, as of Zhang, multiple locations in the reference including page 148, table at top of page. As such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have added more layers than what was exemplified by Zhang by routine experimentation.
As to claim 4, the claim requires hydrogenated soy phosphatidylcholine (HSPC) and dipalmitoyl phosphatidylglycerol (DPPG) in a certain ratio. Zhang teaches a liposome made from DPPG and HSPC. Zhang appears to be silent regarding the ratio at which these components are mixed. Nevertheless, 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, Zhang teaches the general conditions of a HSPC/DPPG liposome. As such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the ratio of HSPC to DPPG via routine experimentation.
As to claim 5, the outer layer of the above-indicated liposome comprises chitosan.
As to claim 7, Zhang appears to suggest insulin in the liposome core, as of page 120, bottom paragraph.
As to claim 10, Zhang teaches Eudragit S100 coating on page 150, section 6.3.4. Eudragit S150 is the trade name of a polymethacrylate polymer modified with carboxylic acid groups. Eudragit S150 is an enteric coating because it is insoluble at the low pH values found in the stomach but dissolves at higher pH values such as those found in the intestine. Eudragit S100, as of Zhang is the same coating used in the instant specification on page 8, paragraph 0049. As such, the skilled artisan would have expected the Eudragit S100 of Zhang to have had the same properties (e.g. with regard to being low-swelling) as required by the instant claims. Something which is old (e.g. Eudragit S100) does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new property, and this feature need not have been recognized at the time of filing. See MPEP 2112(I & II).
As to claim 26, this claim is rejected for the same reason that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 21 Not Rejected: This rejection does not apply to claim 21 and claims dependent thereon. This is because claims 21 and claims dependent thereon require a negatively charged polymer layer and a positively charged drug layer. Zhang teaches neither of these features. In contrast, Zhang teaches a positively charged polymer layer, which is chitosan, and a negatively charged drug layer, which is insulin. There would have been no motivation for the skilled artisan to have used a positively charged drug because Zhang is drawn to delivering insulin, and insulin is inherently negatively charged at neutral pH. Therefore, substituting a positively charged drug in place of insulin would have gone against the purpose of Zhang, which is to deliver insulin. See both the indefiniteness rejection above, as well as examiner's description of how claim 21 is being interpreted in view of the indefiniteness issue.
The examiner notes here that claim 21 and claims dependent thereon are rejected for indefiniteness above. The examiner may reconsider the decision not to reject claim 21 over prior art in light of applicant's response to the above-set forth indefiniteness rejection.
Response to Arguments Regarding Prior Art Rejection
Applicant has made arguments regarding the previously applied prior art rejection, as of applicant’s response on 23 March 2026 (hereafter referred to as applicant’s response). These arguments, which were presented on page 9 of applicant’s response, have been addressed below.
In applicant’s response, applicant cites Zhang, page 147, last six lines, which are reproduced below.
PNG
media_image5.png
264
806
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The data undergirding this statement appears to have been presented as of Zhang, page 148, relevant table reproduced below.
PNG
media_image6.png
318
826
media_image6.png
Greyscale
From the above-reproduced table, the examiner has deduced that with regard to cases wherein the outermost layer is positively charged, the zeta potential does appear to decrease with more layers. For example, the particle with one layer has a zeta potential of +33 mV, a particle with three layers of about +26 mV, and a particle with five layers a zeta potential of +20 mV. However, it is unclear if this trend applies to particles with a negative zeta potential. The absolute value of the negative zeta potential did indeed decrease from zero layers to two layers. However, the four-layer particle has a zeta potential that is more negative than that of the two-layer particle. As such, it is unclear that adding additional layers would necessarily result in a zeta potential closer to zero, especially in the case wherein the outermost layer is negatively charged.
Regarding polydispersity, the examiner notes that polydispersity does appear to have generally increased from zero layers to four layers. However, polydispersity did not increase from four layers to five layers. This indicates that it is not clear that polydispersity would necessarily increase were more layers to have been added.
Nevertheless, the most crucial deficiency regarding applicant’s arguments appears to be that the issue of an enteric coating is not addressed in applicant’s arguments. The examiner notes here that
A) instant claim 1 recites an optional enteric coating;
B) Zhang teaches Eudragit S100 coating on page 150, section 6.3.4, which is an enteric coating; and
C) the composition of the instant application includes an enteric coating, as of Zhang, page 18, paragraph 0091, page 8, paragraph 0049 (which discloses Eudragit S100 which is an enteric coating), and instant figure 15A.
Enteric coatings are made of polymers having carboxylic acid groups that become protonated at low pH and deprotonated at high pH. This results in the coating remaining insoluble at low pH but dissolving at neutral or higher pH. This enables the composition to remain undissolved in the stomach but dissolve in the small intestine. This is crucial for oral delivery of active agents that are subject to acidic hydrolysis or other modes of acid-mediated destruction. The skilled artisan would have expected that an enteric coating applied to the particle would have resulted in a zeta potential that is close to zero at acidic pH but strongly negative at neutral or basic pH values exceeding the pKa of the coating polymer.
As such, it is the examiner’s position that the zeta potential of an enteric coated composition would have been determined wholly by the enteric coating layer, and not by the layers encapsulated by the enteric coating. As such, the subject matter taught as of pages 147-148 of Zhang would not appear to impinge on the final stability of an enteric coated particle because the final stability of the particle would have been determined by the enteric coating rather than the intermediate layers. All of the layers described by the above-reproduced table from page 148 of Zhang would have been intermediate layers had they been surrounded by an enteric coating, which would have been the external layer.
Briefly, applicant makes the following argument as of the end of page 9, which is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image7.png
138
632
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The examiner disagrees that the skilled artisan would have expected that the addition of more layers would have rendered the particle to have been less stable because the skilled artisan would have expected the final stability of the particle to have been controlled by the enteric coating rather than the intermediate layers.
Relevant Prior Art – No Rejection – Yatvin Reference
As relevant prior art, the examiner cites Yatvin (US 2006/0099243 A1). Yatvin is drawn to a proliposomal composition for oral administration which may be enteric coated. Yatvin teaches a chitosan layer between the liposome and the enteric coating, as of Yatvin, paragraph 0038. Yatvin also teaches insulin as an active agent, as of Yatvin, paragraph 0046.
Nevertheless, Yatvin differs from the claimed invention at least because in Yatvin, insulin is encapsulated in the liposome. See paragraph 0045 of Yatvin. In contrast, in the claimed invention, the active agent (which may be insulin) is found as a layer surrounding the liposome rather than being encapsulated in the liposome.
Relevant Prior Art – No Rejection – Venkatraman Reference
As relevant prior art over which no rejection has been written, the examiner cites Venkatraman et al. (US 2016/0319280 A1). Venkatraman et al. (hereafter referred to as Venkatraman) is drawn to a nanoparticle coated with multiple polyelectrolyte layers, as of Venkatraman, title, abstract, and figure in abstract, reproduced in part below.
PNG
media_image8.png
302
586
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Venkatraman teaches the inclusion of two or more alternating layers including both positively charged and negatively charged layers, as of Venkatraman, paragraph 0055. Also, although Venkatraman teaches a hyaluronic acid nanoparticle in the above-indicated embodiment, Venkatraman also teaches a liposome core, as of at least paragraphs 0053-0056.
Nevertheless, Venkatraman differs from the claimed invention because Venkatraman teaches RNA as the active agent to be delivered, as of the abstract. In contrast, Venkatraman does not teach insulin, an insulin-like factor, a growth factor, or a hormonal peptide, as required by the instant claims. It is the examiner’s position that the skilled artisan would not have been motivated to have substituted insulin, an insulin-like factor, a growth factor, or a hormonal peptide in place of the RNA of Venkatraman. The examiner presents the following rationale for this position.
The purpose of the composition and method of Venkatraman is to deliver RNA in a manner that it can be delivered intracellularly and be transfected, as of at least Venkatraman, paragraphs 0009 and 0108. The material of Venkatraman is administered via injection, as of at least paragraph 0035 of Venkatraman. As best understood by the examiner, the reason that the nanoparticle/liposome and cationic polymer is to aid in intracellular delivery and transfection of the RNA. Were the skilled artisan to have substituted insulin, an insulin-like factor, a growth factor, or a hormonal peptide in place of the RNA of Venkatraman, there would have been no need for the nanoparticle/liposome and cationic polymer layer of Venkatraman because the nanoparticle/liposome and cationic polymer of Venkatraman enable intracellular delivery, which would not have been necessary were the active agent to be delivered one of insulin, an insulin-like factor, a growth factor, or a hormonal peptide. In contrast, insulin, an insulin-like factor, a growth factor, or a hormonal peptide are delivered appropriately by injection in an aqueous solution in the absence of a nanoparticle/liposome and layers.
In contrast, the claimed invention appears to be intended for oral administration. This determination is made in view of instant claim 10, which recites an enteric coating. An enteric coating is used to protect an orally administered agent from stomach acid and allow for its dissolution in the intestine. This is not suggested by Venkatraman, as Venkatraman is drawn to administration by injection and does not teach oral administration.
As such, the examiner notes the following:
The composition of Venkatraman, which comprises a nanoparticle/liposome and layers, is intended for intracellular delivery of RNA by injection;
The skilled artisan would not have been motivated to have substituted insulin, an insulin-like factor, a growth factor, or a hormonal peptide in place of the RNA of Venkatraman at least because insulin, an insulin-like factor, a growth factor, or a hormonal peptide would not have been expected to have benefited from nanoparticle/liposome and layers when administered by injection;
The instantly claimed composition is intended for oral administration, and the liposome and layers were used in the instant application to promote oral administration;
Venkatraman does not teach oral administration and is drawn only to administration via injection;
As such, the skilled artisan would not have been motivated to have modified Venkatraman for oral administration of a drug. Given that, there would have been no motivation for the skilled artisan to have included a liposome, layers, and insulin, an insulin-like factor, a growth factor, or a hormonal peptide together in the same composition.
Relevant Prior Art – Correa Reference
As additional relevant prior art, the examiner cites Correa et al. (ACS Nano, Vol. 13, 2019, pages 5623-5634 and S1 through S9). Correa et al. (hereafter referred to as Correa) is drawn to layer-by-layer functionalized liposomes, as of Correa, page 5623, title, abstract, and figure in abstract, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image9.png
272
450
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The greatest amount of layers taught in an embodiment of Correa is four layers, as of Correa, page 5626, right column, bottom paragraph, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image10.png
382
686
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Correa differs from the claimed invention for at least the following reasons.
First, the active agent in Correa is siRNA. This differs from the claimed active agent of insulin, an insulin-like factor, a growth factor, or a hormonal peptide. There would have been no motivation for the skilled artisan to have substituted insulin, an insulin-like factor, a growth factor, or a hormonal peptide in place of the siRNA of Correa. The rationale set forth by the examiner regarding this issue in Venkatraman also applies to Correa.
Secondly, Correa teaches only four layers surrounding the liposome. This differs from the required at least five layers.
Third, as best understood by the examiner, there is only one drug layer in Correa. This differs from the instantly claimed subject matter of claim 1, which requires more than one negatively charged drug layer.
Fourth, the external layer of Correa is an anionic layer, wherein said anionic layer does not appear to be a drug layer. This differs from the instantly claimed invention, which requires either (a) that the external layer be positively charged (i.e. cationic) rather than anionic; or (b) that the external layer be an enteric coating (which may be anionic). The anionic external layer of Correa differs from the required outermost positively charged layer. Additionally, there is no evidence that the external anionic layer, described in Correa, page 5627, left column, bottom paragraph, would have been an enteric coating.
Relevant Prior Art – Guan Reference
As an additional relevant prior art document, the examiner cites Guan et al. (CN 106310230 A). As an initial matter, Guan et al. (CN 106310230 A) has been written in Chinese. However, an English language translation has been obtained from Google Patents at https://patents.google.com/patent/CN106310230A/en?oq=CN+106310230 on 17 December 2025. All paragraph citations are to the English translation; however, the materials cited therein are understood to have been present in the original document.
Guan et al. (hereafter referred to as Guan) is drawn to a oral insulin transport system in a layer-by-layer structure. The composition of Guan appears to have alternating layers of negatively charged polygalacturonic acid and positively charged chitosan, as of Guan, title and abstract.
Guan differs from the claimed invention for at least the following reasons:
First, Guan does not teach a lipid bilayer. In contrast, the interior of the particle of Guan appears to contain only the insulin, as of Guan, near the bottom of page 3.
Secondly, Guan does not appear to teach as many as five layers. The example of Guan on the bottom of page 3 appears to comprise only a single core containing insulin, a single negatively charged layer, and a single positively charged layer.
Third, Guan appears to teach only a single drug layer in the core, as of the bottom of page 3 of Guan. Guan does not teach more than one drug (e.g. insulin) layer, which is what is required by instant claims.
Fourth, specific to claim 21, Guan does not teach a layer comprising cationic polymer (chitosan) and insulin (i.e. the drug) together in the same layer such that the net charge is positive; e.g. as asserted on page 9 of applicant’s response.
Fifth, Guan does not teach an enteric coating.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC SHOMER whose telephone number is (571)270-7671. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM Monday Through Friday.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at (571)272-6897. 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.
ISAAC . SHOMER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1612
/ISAAC SHOMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights