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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 21st, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Action on May 28th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 7-19 and 34-36 are pending in this application. Claims 1-6 and 20-33 have been cancelled by applicant.
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 19 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.
Applicant has amended claim 19 to recite “in a pressured container or pressurized dispenser”, presumably as to overcome the rejection that it is unclear whether the claim term “pressured” applies to both “container” and “dispenser”. However, Applicant has used inconsistent claim terms, namely “pressured” and “pressurized”, and it is now unclear what, if any, the difference between the two is. Moreover, the word “pressurized” is not found in the specification vis-à-vis this claim term, and this claim term thus further introduces new matter. If the proper term is “pressurized”—and based on conventional English language use it appears to be—then Applicant will need to modify both terms with “pressurized”, as well as make amendments to the Specification to correct the improper word “pressured” in it as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 7, 13, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elaskalani et al. (Cancers, 2020, 12, 250, 19 pages – Pub. Date: January 20th, 2020) (“Elaskalani”).
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 35, Elaskalani teaches in vitro, synergism was observed when ticagrelor was combined with several chemodrugs for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC); and discloses that in vivo, a combination of ticagrelor with gemcitabine significantly reduced tumor growth. Elaskalani further reports that in vivo, a combination of ticagrelor with gemcitabine significantly reduced tumor growth in mice. (abstract, p. 11).
Further regarding claim 13, Elaskalani discloses they used female NOD-SCID and C57BL6 mice aged 5–6 weeks for their experiments, with no coronary syndrome or artery disease disclosed (page 4, section 2.8).
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.
Claims 7, 11, 16 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Qatati et al. (Oncol. Lett., 2017, 14: 7993-7999 – cited in IDS) (“Al-Qatati”).
Regarding claims 7, 16, and 35, Al-Qatati discloses the anticancer effect of pitavastatin against melanoma cell lines (skin cancer) (Figure 1A, page 7995). Regarding claim 35, Al-Qatati further discloses a synergistic inhibition of melanoma cells after administration of pitavastatin and DTIC (reading on administration of pitavastatin to a subject further comprising an additional chemotherapeutic agent) (Figure 1B and C; and page 7998, col. 2, last 3 lines).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing of the claimed invention, to administer pitavastatin, alone or in combination, to treat a subject suffering from melanoma (skin cancer). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Al-Qatati teaches that Pitavastatin alone, induces cell death of melanoma cells. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because pitavastatin has been demonstrated to exert cytotoxic effects on glioblastoma tumors in vivo (page 7993, col. 2, last 2 lines), meaning that it is safe to administer to subjects.
Regarding claim 11, Al-Qatati teaches that statins are anti-lipid agents, which have been demonstrated to exert anti-proliferative and anti-cancer effect against a range of types of tumors, and explored the in vitro efficacy of pitavastatin in human melanoma (page 7998, col. 1, lines 4-10). Al-Qatati teaches that pitavastatin has demonstrated in vivo inhibition of tumor growth for glioblastoma (page 7993, col. 2, last 2 lines).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing of the claimed invention, to administer pitavastatin to a subject suffering from melanoma (skin cancer), with or without dyslipidemia or hyperlipidemia in view of Al-Qatai. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Al-Qatati teaches that, while statins are anti-lipid agents, pitavastatin has proved to be effective for inhibition of melanoma cell lines. Furthermore, pitavastatin has demonstrated in vivo inhibition of tumor growth for glioblastoma – meaning that pitavastatin is safe to administer to subjects regardless of dyslipidemia or hyperlipidemia status.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Qatati et al. (Oncol. Lett., 2017, 14: 7993-7999 – cited in IDS) (“Al-Qatati”); as applied to claims 7, 11, 16 and 35 in the 35 USC 103 rejection above; in view of Aung et al. (Laboratory Investigation, 2017, 97, 657–668) (“Aung”).
The teachings of Al-Qatati are discussed in the 35 USC 103 rejection above and incorporated herein.
While Al-Qatati doesn’t teach: (i) treatment of melanoma (skin cancer) in a subject wherein the subject has skin fibrosis (claims 8-10); (ii) or administration of an anti-inflammatory agent (claim 36); the teachings of Aung are relied upon for these disclosures.
Aung teaches that regression (in melanoma) is histologically characterized by variable decrease in the number of melanoma cells accompanied by the presence of a host response consisting of dermal fibrosis (skin fibrosis) (abstract). Aung teaches that there are treatment options for most melanomas, including surgery (wide local excision with or without sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy or regional lymph node dissection), adjuvant or neo-adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy, radiation, targeted therapy, immunotherapy) (page 657, col. 1, lines 1-8).
Therefore, regarding claims 8-10, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to administer pitavastatin to treat melanoma (a skin cancer) in a subject who also has skin fibrosis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Al-Qatati teaches that pitavastatin is effective for inhibition of melanoma cell lines, and has demonstrated in vivo inhibition of tumor growth for glioblastoma – meaning it’s safe to administer to subjects other than cells. Further, because Aung teaches that regression in melanoma is accompanied by skin fibrosis, and therefore, while subject is treated for melanoma and skin cancer undergoes regression, a subject would likely develop skin fibrosis while treatment with pitavastatin is continued.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Qatati et al. (Oncol. Lett., 2017, 14: 7993-7999 – cited in IDS) (“Al-Qatati”), as applied to claims 7, 11, 16 and 35 in the 35 USC 103 rejection above; in view of Aung et al. (Laboratory Investigation, 2017, 97, 657–668) (“Aung”); as applied to claims 8-10 in the 35 USC 103 rejection above; in view of Cullen et al. (Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 153, 2020, 54–64 – Available Online: Nov. 6th, 2029) (“Cullen”).
The teachings of Al-Qatati and Aung arediscussed in the 35 USC 103 rejections above and incorporated herein.
While Al-Qatati in view of Aung doesn’t teach wherein the pitavastatin for treating melanoma (skin cancer) is formulated for topical application (ointment, gel, lotion, etc.) (claims 14-16); the teachings of Cullen et al. are relied upon for these disclosures.
Cullen teaches surgical excision of these malignancies has been the preferred treatment of patients for decades. However, the decision to perform surgery can be affected by various considerations, including co-morbidities of the patient, the anatomical site of the lesion and potential intolerance for repeated excisions. Topical treatment of skin cancer may therefore be more appropriate in certain instances. Topical treatment potentially allows for higher drug levels at the tumor site, and may result in less overall toxicity than systemic agents (abstract). Cullen further discloses a number of topical treatments for skin cancers – creams, etc. (starting on page 56, col. 1, section 3).
Therefore, regarding claims 14-16, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to administer a topical formulation, such as a cream, comprising Al-Qatati’s pitavastatin for the treatment of melanoma in view of Aung and Cullen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Cullen teaches topical treatment potentially allows for higher drug levels at the tumor site, and may result in less overall toxicity than systemic agents. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Al-Qatati and Aung disclose pitavastatin for the treatment of melanoma; and Cullen teaches the advantages of topical treatments over systemic chemotherapies or surgeries for treating skin cancers, and different formulations for topical administration, including creams.
Claims 14, 17-19, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elaskalani et al. (Cancers, 2020, 12, 250, 19 pages – Pub. Date: January 20th, 2020) (“Elaskalani”); as applied to claims 7, 13, and 35 in the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection above; in view of Gandhi et al. (Int. J. of Pharmaceutics, 496, 2015, 886–895) (“Gandhi”); further in view of Labiris et al. (Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 56, 2003, 588–599) (“Labiris”).
The teachings of Elaskalani are discussed in the 102- rejection above and incorporated herein.
While Elaskalani does not disclose: (i) administration of their ticagrelor for inhalaton, as an aerosol spray, mist, or powder in a pressurized dispenser (claims 17-19) or an inhaler or nebulizer (claim 34); the teachings of Gandhi and Labiris are relied upon for these disclosures.
Gandhi teaches an inhalable liposomal dry powder formulation of gemcitabine HCl for pulmonary delivery (title and abstract). Gandhi teaches changes in the mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) of their formulation gives significant in vivo performance, with MMADs lower than 1 causing systemic absorption of the formulation after reaching the alveoli in the lungs (page 892, col. 2, section 9.3).
Labiris teaches the lung is attractive for systemic drug delivery (abstract – see Table 1, page 589, col. 2).
Therefore, regarding claims 14 and 17, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try preparation of Elaskalani’s ticagrelor with gemcitabine combination therapy as a formulation for administration via inhalation in view of Gandhi and Labiris. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Elaskalani teaches that ticagrelor and gemcitabine show synergistic in vivo reduction of tumor growth; Gandhi teaches an inhalable liposomal dry powder formulation of gemcitabine HCl for pulmonary delivery and that gemcitabine HCl use has been limited by enzymatic metabolism; further because Labiris teaches the lungs are an attractive route for systemic drug delivery. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in view of Gandhi’s teaching that MMADs lower than 1 in aerosol formulations of their dry powder inhaler results in systemic absorption after reaching the alveoli in the lungs; and Labiris’ teachings that the lungs are a less harsh, low enzymatic environment that is devoid of hepatic first-pass metabolism, among other advantages of lung delivery (Table 1, col. 2).
Regarding claims 18 and 34, Gandhi discloses their dry powder inhaler formulation and aerosol (abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Gandhi also discloses gemcitabine aerosolized using an inhaler (reading on pressured/ pressurized container) (page 888, col. 1, section 4.2.4).
Gandhi discloses their dry powder compositions of gemcitabine which can be formulated to maximize systemic delivery by modulating MMAD; and Labiris disclosure that systemic administration through the lung is an attractive route.
Therefore, regarding claims 18-19 and 34, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the claimed invention to prepare Elaskalani’s composition as a dry powder, packaged in a pressurized aerosol spray, as taught by Gandhi, in view of Labiris. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Gandhi teaches that their inhalable liposomal dry powder formulation of gemcitabine HCl for with a mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) allows for significant in vivo performance, with MMADs lower than 1 causing systemic absorption of the formulation after reaching the alveoli in the lungs; further because Labiris teaches the lung as an attractive route for systemic drug delivery. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Elaskalani discloses their ticagrelor and gemcitabine compositions for treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)
Claims 7, 12, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahimian et al. (Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 93 (2017) 589–595) (“Rahimian”); in view of Padoan et al. (Int. J. Mol. Sci., 2019, 20, 676) (“Padoan”).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Rahimian teaches tropisetron significantly attenuated pancreatic injury markers and decreased the amount of pro-inflammatory cytokines caused by acute pancreatitis (AP) in mice (abstract and page 1, col. 2, last 3 lines).
While Rahimian does not teach pancreatic cancer, the teachings of Padoan et al. are relied upon for these disclosures.
Padoan teaches that local chronic inflammation and acute pancreatitis (AP) enhance the risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (abstract; and page 1, para. 2, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to administer tropisetron to a subject with acute pancreatitis in order to reduce the risk of developing PDAC, as taught by Rahimian in view of Padoan. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Rahimian teaches that tropisetron can attenuate pancreatic injury and inflammation caused by AP in mice by combatting inflammatory signaling; and Padoan’s discloses that AP and inflammatory signaling by cytokines are risk factors for PDAC. Thus attenuation of AP-related pancreatic injury would be expected to reduce the risk of developing PDAC in a subject with AP (“reading on subject in need”).
Further regarding claim 12, Rahimian discloses their tropisetron treatment was administered to male NMR mice (page 590, col. 1, section 2.1). Rahimian doesn’t disclose preexisting conditions of fibromyalgia, vomiting, or nausea in their subjects.
Regarding claim 36, Padoan discloses aspirin and metformin (both anti-inflammatory drugs) have a slight protective effect against PDAC (page 1, para. 2, line 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to administer Rahimi’s tropisetron anti-inflammatory therapy with an additional anti-inflammatory agent, such as aspirin or metformin, in view of Padoan. Applicant is advised, with respect to a mixture of the two claimed reagents, the courts have found that “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art (In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).” See MPEP2144.06.
In the present case, Rahimian in view of Padoan teach tropisetron as effective for reducing the risk of PDAC in subjects with AB; and Padoan also teaches aspirin and metformin have a slight protective effect against PDAC. Therefore, it is obvious to combine these agents to arrive at a composition capable of reducing the risk of PDAC.
Claims 7-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moschetta et al. (WO 2018/164715 A1) (“Moschetta”).
Regarding claims 7 and 35, Moschetta teaches methods for delaying or preventing (reading on reducing the risk of) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (page 15, lines 18-22) and pancreatic cancer (page 17, lines 3-4). Moschetta teaches the compounds of their invention may be co-administered with a second therapeutic agent (reading on combination therapy with a chemotherapeutic agent – claim 35) (page 17, line 25), and lists a number of anti-cancer agents, including tropisetron (page 20, line 30) and pitavastatin (page 22, line 14). Thus, Moschetta discloses tropisetron and pitavastatin as anticancer agents capable of treating or reducing the risk of HCC and pancreatic cancer in combination therapy.
Applicant is advised that the transitional term "comprising" is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004). MPEP 2111.03.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing of the claimed invention to administer tropisetron or pitavastatin for treating or reducing the risk of HCC or pancreatic cancer in a subject. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in view of Moschetta’s disclosure that combination therapy with their compounds and anti-cancer agents tropisetron or pitavastatin is effective in methods of treating or reducing the risk of HCC and pancreatic cancer.
Regarding claims 8-9, Moschetta teaches that subjects with hepatitis B or C have an increased risk of developing HCC, and that these people can all be candidates for their method of reducing the risk of HCC comprising tropisetron or pitavastatin (page 15, lines 23-28).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Moschetta does not disclose fibromyalgia, dyslipidemia, or hyperlipidemia in their candidates for treatment and nothing in their disclosure precludes subjects with or without these conditions from receiving treatment.
Regarding claim 14 and 17, Moschetta discloses their formulation may be administered topically or inhaled (page 23, lines 23-25).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Moschetta discloses topical formulations may be in the form of creams; and intranasal (inhalation) formulations may be aerosols or sprays (page 24, lines 18-20).
Regarding claims 19 and 34, Moschetta discloses inhalation formulations may be ins the form of metered dose pressurized aerosols, nebulizers, or insufflators (page 24, last para.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moschetta et al. (WO 2018/164715 A1) (“Moschetta”); as applied to claims 7-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 34-35; in view of Wu et al. (Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology, 2014, 2, 222–227) (“Wu”).
The teachings of Moschetta et al. are disclosed above and incorporated herein.
While Moschetta does not teach their method of treatment in a subject with hepatic fibrosis (claim 10); the teachings of Wu et al. are relied upon for these disclosures.
Wu teaches that chronic liver diseases, such as chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and chronic hepatitis C (CHC), are characterized by the presence of liver fibrosis (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to administer Moschetta’s HCC prevention treatment comprising tropisetron or pitavastatin in a subject with hepatic fibrosis in view of Wu. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Moschetta discloses their combination therapy for reducing the risk of HCC comprising anti-cancer agents tropisetron or pitavastatin, and teaches that subjects with hepatitis B or C have an increased risk of developing HCC. Further because Wu teaches that chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and C (CHC), are characterized by the presence of liver fibrosis. Thus, Moschetta’s treatment of subjects with CHB and CHC comprises treatment of subjects with hepatic fibrosis.
Response to Arguments
Claims
Claim amendments are acknowledged and have been entered. No new matter has been introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed October 21st, 2025, with respect to 35 USC § 112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(a) rejections of claims 7-10 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed October 21st, 2025, with respect to 35 USC § 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejections of claims 11-13 and 18-19 has been withdrawn. In view of Applicant’s claim amendments of claim 19, a modified 112(b) rejection has been made herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed October 21st, 2025, with respect to 35 USC § 112(d) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(d) rejections of claims 11-13 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 102 rejections of instant claims (see pages 6-9) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See new grounds of 35 USC § 102 rejections set forth above in this final office action, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/21/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejections of instant claims (see pages 9-14) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See new grounds of 35 USC § 103 rejections set forth above in this final office action, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/21/2025.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKSON J HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5382. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7:30 to 5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Kortney L. Klinkel can be reached at (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.
/JACKSON J HERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1627
/SVETLANA M IVANOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627
Prosecution Insights