Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4 and 6-20 are pending following the Reply filed 07/23/2025. Claims 2-3 and 5 have been cancelled by Applicant. Claims 1, 4 and 6-20 are presently considered.
Notice
The Examiner notes that, while the claim amendments are compliant, the manner in which Applicant has made the amendments does not reproduce well when entered into the PTO system; the amendments appear much lighter and blurred, making the text difficult to read. As noted in MPEP 608, in order to enhance readability of electronic submissions, the USPTO strongly recommends use of a black colored font for text on a white background. This guidance also applies to amendments as anything other than black text is reproduced as some shade of gray, which can reduce legibility.
Withdrawn
Objections to claims 3-6, 12 and 16 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Any rejection of claims 2-3 and 5 is moot because the claims are cancelled.
Rejections of claims 11-12 and 15 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
The written description rejection of claims 1, 4 and 6-20 under 112(a) is withdrawn in light of the amendments. As discussed in the previous Office Action, strains or subspecies of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium having anti-bacterial vaginosis and/or anti-candida activity are known in the art, and a representative number of species of this genus is disclosed in Applicant’s Examples. Further, numerous strains of Myoviridae and Siphoviridae having anti-pathogenic E. coli activity are characterized in the art, and a person of ordinary skill would be able to identify a priori which strains have (or do not have) the same activity as the four used in Applicant’s Examples.
The rejection of claims 1 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn in light of the amendments. See Response to Arguments below for further discussion.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a phage comprising at least one strain of Myoviridae and Siphoviridae” in lines 5-6. Given the plain meaning of the phrase, this limitation is interpreted as requiring “at least one strain of Myoviridae” and “at least one strain of Siphoviridae”.
Maintained rejections and new rejections necessitated by amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 6-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss (previously cited) and further in view of Deaton 2019 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Kiss teaches compositions for the oral administration of human Lactobacilli (probiotics) for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis and the prevention of preterm delivery caused by bacterial vaginosis (see Abstract). Kiss teaches that when administered orally, the probiotic bacteria “are expected to survive passage through the stomach and duodenum (displaying a certain stability towards acid and bile) and temporarily colonize the gut. From there, small numbers of bacteria will ascend to the vagina and (again temporarily) colonize the vaginal mucosa” (see pg. 3, para. [0021]). Kiss also discloses that previous studies have shown orally-administered Lactobacillus to produce beneficial effects to the vaginal flora, wherein the authors have discussed the probiotic bacteria as ascending to the vagina from the rectal area (see pg. 1, para. [0007]). Kiss teaches that Lactobacilli have the ability to adhere to vaginal epithelia, inhibit the adhesion and growth of pathogens, deplete nutrients otherwise available to pathogens, and modulate the host immune response and microenvironment (see pg. 1, para. [0002]). Kiss teaches a deficiency in Lactobacilli can upset the microbial balance in the vagina, frequently resulting in the syndrome of bacterial vaginosis, which may be associated with a quantitative and qualitative shift from normally occurring Lactobacilli to a mixed flora dominated by anaerobic bacteria (see pg. 1, para. [0003]). Kiss teaches that the depletion of Lactobacilli and increased colonization of pathogenic microorganisms, such as E. coli, is associated with bacterial vaginosis and urinary tract infections (see pg. 1, para. [0004]). Kiss teaches that Lactobacilli in pregnancies play an important role to protect women from vaginal infections which are associated with preterm delivery, preterm labor, and poor pregnancy outcome (see pg. 7, para. [0106]). Kiss teaches a dietetic or pharmaceutical composition comprising at least four Lactobacillus strains (see claim 1) for the treatment of vaginal infections and urinary tract infections caused by Lactobacillus deficiency, including chronic bacterial vaginosis and yeast infections (see claim 10). Kiss teaches that all Lactobacilli strains selected for the composition demonstrated strong inhibition of Gardnerella vaginalis (associated with bacterial vaginosis) with some strains causing a very strong to complete inhibition of Candida albicans (see pg. 6, paras. [0087] and [0088]).
Kiss does not teach the composition comprising a phage comprising at least one strain of Myoviridae and Siphoviridae.
Deaton 2019 teaches a bacteriophage-containing composition that can be used as a prebiotic supplementation to support the gastrointestinal microflora by promoting the growth of beneficial bacteria by decreasing harmful bacterial populations while releasing nutrients into the environment for the beneficial bacteria to use (see Abstract). Deaton 2019 teaches that a proliferation of harmful bacteria in the gut leads to an unbalanced bacterial flora and good bacteria may require help displacing the unwanted bacteria (see pg. 1, para. [0004]). Deaton teaches that one useful bacteriophage-containing composition is commercially sold as PreforPro® (see pg. 2, paras. [0018] and [0025]) which can reduce populations of the target bacteria, E. coli, as well as increase the number of probiotic species, including members of Lactobacillus (see pg. 2, para. [0025], col. 2). Deaton 2019 teaches that the PreforPro commercial preparation by Deerland Enzymes includes 4 supplemental bacteriophage strains, LH01-Myoviridae, T4D-Myoviridae, LL12-Myoviridae and LL5-Siphoviridae (see pg. 3, para. [0035], lines 3-6). Deaton 2019 teaches that these organisms were shown to be purely lytic and are known to infect a range of Escherichia coli strains, including E. coli K12, 16 enterotoxigenic E. coli strains, and 2 enterohemorrhagic strains (see pg. 4, para. [0038], col. 1). Deaton 2019 teaches the phages are not likely to be able to infect and kill other bacteria outside of the Enterobacteriaceae family and are not expected to negatively alter the natural microbiota of the human intestine (see pg. 4, para. [0038], col. 1). Deaton 2019 teaches that PreforPro® is currently marketed as both a food and dietary ingredient and research in animal models demonstrates that when consumed simultaneously with probiotic bacteria, it stimulates their growth (see pg. 6, para. [0055]). Deaton 2019 also teaches that “[b]ecause baseline populations of these beneficial bacteria vary greatly between individuals and in response to diet and other factors, more consistent results might be achieved when co-consuming the phages with specific probiotic bacteria. As PreforPro® is commonly used as an ingredient in probiotic formulations, co-administration of this phage consortium with probiotic bacteria is contemplated” (see pg. 10, para. [0094]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed invention by combining the Lactobacilli composition taught by Kiss with the bacteriophage composition taught by Deaton 2019, because Kiss teaches Lactobacilli strains that are useful to treat and prevent bacterial vaginosis and candida infections, while Deaton 2019 teaches a phage-containing composition that helps increase Lactobacilli in order to displace disease-causing bacteria. One would have been motivated to do so, because Kiss teaches Lactobacilli play an important role in protecting women from diseases associated with the depletion of beneficial bacteria and the propagation of pathogenic bacteria, while Deaton 2019 teaches that a proliferation of harmful bacteria, such as E. coli, leads to an unbalanced bacterial flora and good bacteria may require help displacing the unwanted bacteria. Furthermore, as Kiss teaches orally administered probiotics to colonize the gut before migrating to the vagina, one would have recognized the benefit of including the bacteriophages in the composition, because both beneficial and harmful bacteria are understood to colonize the vagina via this pathway. One would have recognized that the elements of these teachings (i.e., probiotic, phage) could be combined by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (i.e., promote growth and/or inhibit pathogens). Thus, one would have recognized the results of the combination to be predictable and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Hence, the combination would have been readily apparent and deemed to be a mere (A) combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I): Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103).
Regarding claim 4, Kiss teaches the composition comprising Lactobacillus crispatus LBV88, Lactobacillus rhamnosus LBV96, Lactobacillus jensenii LBV 116, and Lactobacillus gasseri LBV 150N (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 6, Deaton 2019 teaches that the PreforPro® phage composition comprises Myoviridae strains LH01, T4D, and LL12, and Siphoviridae strain LL5, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 7, Kiss teaches the composition is formulated in a dosage comprising four Lactobacillus strains (see pg. 3, Table 2) for use in the treatment of vaginal and female urogenital infections caused by Lactobacillus deficiency, including vaginosis, vaginitis, and urinary tract infections (see pg. 3, para. [0022]). Further, Kiss teaches the healthy human vagina is dominated by a variety of Lactobacillus species which play an essential role in protecting women from such urogenital infections (see pg. 1, para. [0002]). Hence, Kiss teaches the composition is formulated in a dosage sufficient for improving the urinary tract health and vaginal health of a woman.
Regarding claim 8, Kiss teaches the composition is formulated in a dosage comprising four Lactobacillus strains (see pg. 3, Table 2) for use in the treatment of urinary tract and vaginal infections (see pg. 3, para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Kiss teaches the composition is formulated in a dosage comprising four Lactobacillus strains (see pg. 3, Table 2) for the physiological restoration of vaginal flora and the physiologic maintenance of Lactobacillus flora (see pg. 3, para. [0022]). Hence, Kiss teaches the composition is formulated in a dosage sufficient for improving the vaginal microbiota of a woman.
Regarding claim 10, Kiss teaches the composition is formulated in a dosage comprising four Lactobacillus strains (see pg. 3, Table 2) for use in the treatment of conditions caused by Lactobacillus deficiency and for the physiological maintenance of vaginal flora with a deficiency to produce Lactobacilli (see pg. 3, para. [0022]). Hence, Kiss teaches the dosage is sufficient to increase the population of vaginal lactobacilli.
Regarding claim 11, Kiss teaches the composition is formulated in a dosage comprising four Lactobacillus strains with initial viable cell counts of 5 x 109 CFU/dose (LBV 88), 5 x 109 CFU/dose (LBV 96), 1 x 109 CFU/dose (LBV 116), and 1.5 x 109 CFU/dose (LBV 150N) of each strain respectively (see pg. 3, Table 2). Hence, Kiss teaches the total probiotic in said composition is formulated in a dosage of more than 5 billion CFUs.
Regarding claim 12, Deaton 2019 teaches that the bacteriophage-containing composition may include the bacteriophages in an amount containing 1x103 to 1x109 PFUs per dose (see pg. 2, para. [0019]). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill to have selected any dose within this range, including the overlapping range of 4.7 x 105 to 1x109.
Regarding claim 13, Kiss teaches the composition is suitable for oral intake (see claim 8), and Deaton 2019 teaches that suitable dosage forms include oral dosage forms (see pg. 10, para. [0100]).
Regarding claim 14, Kiss teaches the composition as a dietetic or pharmaceutical composition (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Kiss teaches a dietetic or pharmaceutical composition comprising at least four Lactobacillus strains (see claim 1) which is suitable for oral intake (see claim 8) and in the form of an orally-consumed composition (see claim 9) which is suitable for the treatment of vaginal infections and urinary tract infections caused by Lactobacillus deficiency, including chronic bacterial vaginosis and yeast infections (see claim 10). Hence, the method for treating a urinary tract infection and/or vaginal infection of a woman comprising the step of orally administering the composition would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 17, as set forth under Claim Interpretation in the previous Office Action, the “treatment” of a medical condition is reasonably interpreted to include “reducing the duration of severity” of said medical condition. Hence, claim 17 is obvious for the same reasons discussed regarding claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Kiss teaches a dietetic or pharmaceutical composition comprising at least four Lactobacillus strains (see claim 1) which is suitable for oral intake (see claim 8) and in the form of an orally-consumed composition (see claim 9). Kiss teaches the composition is for the physiological restoration of the vaginal flora and for a physiologic maintenance of Lactobacillus flora (see pg. 3, para. [0022]). Hence, the method for improving the vaginal microbiota of a woman comprising the step of orally administering the composition would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Kiss teaches a dietetic or pharmaceutical composition comprising at least four Lactobacillus strains (see claim 1) which is suitable for oral intake (see claim 8) and in the form of an orally-consumed composition (see claim 9). Kiss teaches the composition is for the treatment of conditions caused by Lactobacillus deficiency and for the physiologic restoration of vaginal flora having a deficiency to produce Lactobacilli (see pg. 3, para. [0022]). Hence, it is understood that the composition taught by Kiss is expected to increase the population of vaginal Lactobacilli, and the method comprising the step of orally administering the composition would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Kiss teaches a dietetic or pharmaceutical composition comprising at least four Lactobacillus strains (see claim 1) which is suitable for oral intake (see claim 8) and in the form of an orally-consumed composition (see claim 9). Kiss teaches the composition is for the treatment of vaginal and female urogenital infections caused by Lactobacillus deficiency (see pg. 3, para. [0022]). Kiss teaches that the healthy human vagina is dominated by a variety of Lactobacillus species which play an essential role in protecting women from urogenital infection (see pg. 1, para. [0002]). Hence, the method for improving or maintaining the vaginal health of a woman comprising the step of orally administering the composition would have been obvious.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss and Deaton 2019, as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-14 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Maltzahn (previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Deaton 2019 teaches that suitable dosage forms, including oral dosage forms, include powders (see pgs. 10-11, para. [0100]). Deaton 2019 also teaches that for oral administration, probiotics may be further combined with one or more solid inactive ingredients for the preparation of powders (see pg. 11, para. [0101]).
Deaton and Kiss do not teach a kit suitable for administering orally to a human comprising instructions for how to use the kit, and in a packet the composition.
Maltzahn teaches compositions, methods, and kits comprising microbiome regulators for the modulation of the human microbiota and to treat or prevent related diseases, disorders, or conditions (see Abstract; pg. 16, para. [0131]). Maltzahn teaches that a healthy microbial community protects the host by enhancing the intestinal barrier, by competitive exclusion of potential pathogens or disease-associated bacteria, and by growth inhibition of bacterial pathogens and disease-associated bacteria (see pg. 34, para. [0265]). Maltzahn teaches there is a need for novel therapeutics that can stimulate beneficial microbiota shifts and improve human health (see pg. 1, para. [0002]). Maltzahn teaches a composition comprising microbiome regulators and a bacterial taxa (see pg. 6, para. [0040]), wherein the bacterial taxa is a commensal bacterial taxa comprising Lactobacillus (see pg. 7, para. [0046]), wherein a freeze-dried powder containing the probiotic organism may be incorporated into a particulate material (see pg. 25, para. [0229]). Maltzahn teaches that the disease-associated bacteria, pathobionts or pathogens that may be modulated by the composition include Escherichia coli (see pg. 33-34, para. [0263]) and Candida (pg. 34, para. [0264]). Maltzahn teaches a kit comprising unit dosage forms of the composition, and a package insert containing instructions for use of the composition, wherein the doses are packaged in one or more packets (pg. 54, para. [0434]). Maltzahn teaches the unit dosage form comprises a powder (see pg. 4, para. [0027]). Maltzahn teaches such kits are useful for the treatment and prevention of diseases associated with a dysbiosis of the gastrointestinal microbiota, the reduction of symptoms in a subject in need, and for improving overall health of the host (see pg. 16, para. [0131]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed invention by combining the teachings of Kiss, Deaton 2019 and Maltzahn, because all three references teach compositions that alter the human microbiota by benefiting beneficial bacteria, such as Lactobacillus while inhibiting disease-associated pathogens, such as E. coli and Candida. One could have combined the elements taught by Deaton 2019 and Kiss to manufacture a kit comprising the probiotic composition in powder form, as taught by Maltzahn. One would have been motivated to do so, because Maltzahn teaches such kits are useful for the treatment and prevention of diseases associated with a dysbiosis of the gastrointestinal microbiota. One would have recognized that the elements of these teachings (i.e., probiotic, phage) could be combined by known methods (e.g., lyophilization), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (i.e., promote growth and/or inhibit pathogens). Hence, the combination would have been readily apparent and deemed to be a mere (A) combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I): Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103). Furthermore, it is well within the ordinary skill in the art to formulate a powder composition comprising bacteria and bacteriophages and to provide the composition in a packet with written instructions for its use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 07/23/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the examiner agrees that Deaton does not explicitly teach a composition comprising at least one strain of Myoviridae. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Deaton has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant makes the following arguments:
(1) Applicant argues that there would be no motivation to modify the teachings of Deaton in view of the teachings of Kiss, because Deaton is specifically focused on improving gut health, whereas Kiss teaches changes to the bacterial flora in the vagina.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as discussed in the present rejection (in view of Kiss and Deaton 2019), Kiss teaches that when administered orally, probiotic bacteria are expected to colonize the gut and, subsequently, the vagina and suggests that this is via a rectal-vaginal route. Kiss teaches Lactobacilli play an important role in protecting women from diseases associated with the depletion of beneficial bacteria and the propagation of pathogenic bacteria, while Deaton 2019 teaches that a proliferation of harmful bacteria, such as E. coli, leads to an unbalanced bacterial flora and good bacteria may require help displacing the unwanted bacteria. In addition, Deaton 2019 suggests the co-administration of probiotics and bacteriophages to provide more consistent results. See the present rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 for further discussion.
(2) Applicant further argues that Kiss suggests that it is surprising that oral administration would impact bacterial flora in the vagina at all and submits paragraph [0011] of Kiss as evidence to support this argument.
This argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s argument is not based on a factual conclusion. Kiss states on page 2, paragraph [0011]:
It has now been surprisingly found, that in a controlled trial, oral administration over only two weeks of a combination of Lactobacillus crispatus, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus jensenii and Lactobacillus gasseri, contrary to the prior art in the absence of antibiotic, the Nugent scores of the participants were lowered from an average of 8 (indicative of bacterial vaginosis) to an average of 6 (indicative of an intermediate floral quality). (Emphasis added)
The examiner does not agree that the above recitation reasonably equates to a suggestion “that it is surprising that oral administration would impact that bacterial floral [sic] in the vagina at all” (see Applicant’s arguments on pg. 7, para. 4). Conversely, Kiss teaches that the oral administration of probiotics impacts vaginal flora, because a pathway exists wherein the bacteria that have colonized the gut can later colonize the vagina (see pg. 3, para. [0021]) and discloses this rectal-vaginal route as being known in the art (see pg. 1, para. [0007]), as discussed in the present rejection.
(3) Applicant argues that the phages in Deaton are clearly described as aiding in promoting strains for good digestion, and there is no indication from Deaton that this would impact the vaginal environment at all.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. As discussed in the present rejection (in view of Kiss and Deaton 2019), Kiss teaches the Lactobacillus of the disclosure to impact the vaginal environment, and Deaton 2019 is relied upon to show that the co-administered bacteriophages would be expected to aid in the proliferation of Lactobacillus while depleting bacteria that are harmful to the vaginal environment. In view of Kiss, it would have been expected that the bacteria present in the digestive system may also influence the microbial composition of the vagina.
(4) Applicant argues that the bacterial strains disclosed by Kiss clearly would not be ideal as probiotics to aid in digestion as sought by Deaton, as the strains disclosed by Kiss would promote a lower pH of the digestive tract than normal physiological conditions. Applicant argues that the bacterial strains in each reference have a very different purpose and have different characteristics.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Examiner notes that the present rejection does not rely on Deaton (2017) or a rationale that would require the probiotics to aid in digestion. Regarding the physiological differences between the vagina and the digestive tract, Kiss does teach Lactobacillus to help lower vaginal pH to optimal conditions. However, Kiss also teaches that the same probiotics can be administered orally, wherein they colonize the gut before migrating to the vagina. Therefore, the Kiss reference does not discourage one from introducing these bacterial strains to the digestive tract and actually teaches that doing so is an effective method for treating vaginal conditions.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DENNIS IGNATIUS ARMATO whose telephone number is (703)756-5348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-6:30pm 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, Adam Weidner can be reached at (571) 272-3045. 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.
/DENNIS IGNATIUS ARMATO JR/Examiner, Art Unit 1651 /Adam Weidner/SPE, Art Unit 1651