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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the structure in claim 5 in the reply filed on October 13, 2025 is acknowledged, wherein the elected structure is following:
PNG
media_image1.png
96
94
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-18, and 34 are pending in the instant application. Claim 34 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Accordingly, claims 1 and 4-18 are under examination on the merits in the instant application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 3, 2023 has been considered by the examiner, except the non-English language foreign patent document citation numbers 1-4. Note that the partial English language translation submitted by applicant are illegible.
Drawings
The drawings in Figures 4 and 7-9 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show each, distinct siRNA compound in the graphs displaying indistinguishable legends (shapes). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the sequence rule non-compliant subject matter. See paragraphs 0542-0543. Appropriate correction is required as instructed below.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide sequences appearing in the specification, see paragraphs 0542-0543, are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d).
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Claim Rejections - Improper Markush Grouping
Claims 1, 4-12, and 14-18 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination of process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP §706.03(y).
The Markush grouping of “formula (I)” species is improper for the following reasons: The alternative species defined by the Markush grouping do not share a single structural similarity. For instance, compare the following two structures recited in claim 5 encompassed by “formula (I)”.
PNG
media_image2.png
134
202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is further noted that the instant specification does not disclose that all of the structures encompassed by “formula (I)” have the same function when incorporated into the antisense strand of an siRNA molecule. Taken together, all of the structurally diverse species of “formula (I)” are not deemed to have a common use flowing from a commonly shared structure.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternatives within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The instant claims are drawn to an siRNA molecule comprising at least one “formula (I)” at positions 2-8 of the antisense strand, wherein “at least one” reads on up to seven at each of positions 2-8. It is noted that the instant specification at best discloses only position 7 of the antisense strands comprising only a limited number of species such as GNA, (S)-hmpNA (e.g., TJ-NA067), (R)-hmpNA (e.g., TJ-NA068), D-aTNA (e.g., TJ-NA019), L-aTNA (e.g., TJ-NA020), and TJ-NA038 within the claimed genus of “formula (I)”. The disclosure in the specification is not deemed sufficient to comply with the written description requirement for the following reasons:
1. Position of formula (I)
The single nucleotide position 7 within the claimed range of “at least one of nucleotide positions 2 to 8” and the limited species within the claimed genus of “formula (I)” are not a representative number of species that are sufficient to represent the substantial variations of the antisense strand as now claimed, especially in light of the art-recognized unpredictability pertaining to the RNAi activity when the antisense strand of an siRNA molecule has at least one modification within nucleotide positions 2-8. For instance, Templin et al. (US 2011/0313020 A1) expressly demonstrates little or no target silencing by an siRNA molecule (Motif # 34 and 4) whose antisense strand comprises two acyclic modifications (“Monomer D”) at positions 2 and 7 or at positions 6 and 7, whereas siRNA molecules (Motif # 35 and 36) comprising one acyclic modification at position 6 or position 7 of the antisense strand provided significant target silencing. See Tables 1-4, 8-11, 21, and 26. Hence, Templin teaches that “an RNA complex comprising hydroxymethyl substituted monomers at positions 6 and 7 of the antisense strand counting from the 5’-end of the antisense strand (motif 4) are not processed by the Dicer enzyme.” See paragraph 0373. See also the structure of “Monomer D” incorporated into the antisense strands of Templin’s siRNA molecules disclosed in paragraph 0323 as reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
176
144
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Similarly, Theile et al. (WO 2018/098328 A1) teach position-dependent antisense strand activity for (S)-GNA such that the antisense strand is inactive when the (S)-GNA is at position 5. See Figure 32A. Hence, in view of the art-recognized position-dependent unpredictability of siRNA activity, the single position, nucleotide position 7, within the “at least one of nucleotide positions 2 to 8” as disclosed in the instant specification cannot constitute a representative number of positions (e.g., one or more of positions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) within the claimed genus.
2. Species of formula (I)
Regarding the “formula (I)” species at position 7 of the antisense strand, the instant specification expressly teaches that only a limited number of species within the claimed genus of “formula (I)” were synthesized and tested, wherein the instant co-inventors expressly disclose that siRNAs comprising GNA, TJ-NA019(A), TJ-NA020(A), TJ-NA026(A), (+)hmpNA(A), and (-)hmpNA(A) “had the best activity” and that siRNAs comprising TJ-NA027(A), (+)hmpNA(A), and (-)hmpNA(A) had “no off-target activity”. See paragraph 0465. Hence, the instant specification itself discloses unpredictability and variability in siRNA activity depending on the actual type of “formula (I)” at position 7 of the antisense strand, wherein the instant co-inventors report that only (+)hmpNA(A) and (-)hmpNA(A) at position 7 provided both on-target RNAi activity and no off-target activity among the “formula (I)” species tested. Indeed, the instant specification discloses that the instant co-inventors ultimately pursued siRNA species comprising (-)hmpNA at position 7 based on the experimental findings. See Tables 26 and 66. Taken together, the single “formula (I)” species, (-)hmpNA at position 7 of the antisense strand, is not deemed a representative number of structurally diverse species within the claimed genus in view of the disclosure of the instant specification pertaining to the unpredictable effects of different species on RNAi activity required by the claimed “siRNA” molecule.
3. siRNA structure (length and chemical modifications) having formula (I)
Regarding the siRNA comprising a chemically modified sense strand of 15-35 nucleotides and a chemically modified antisense strand of 15-35 nucleotides comprising “formula (I)”, the instant specification at best describes retained or improved RNAi activity by an siRNA formed by a 19-mer sense strand modified with 2’-F at positions 5, 7, 8, and 9 while all other positions are modified with 2’-O-methyl with a “NAG1” conjugate at the 3’ end and a 21-mer antisense strand modified with “(-)hmpNA” at position 7 with the specific modification pattern of MFMFMF(-)hmpNAMFMMFMFMFMFMMM, wherein both strands have two phosphorothioate linkages in each of the 5’ end and 3’ end regions. See Tables 26 and 66. The 19-mer sense strand length is not representative of the range of 15-35, nor is the 21-mer antisense strand length representative of the range of 15-35 comprising at least one “formula (I)” within positions 2-8. Furthermore, the specific position-dependent chemical modifications in the sense strand forming a one blunt-ended duplex with the antisense strand having specific chemical modifications at specific nucleotide positions are not sufficient to describe the generically claimed modifications of an siRNA molecule having “formula (I)” for providing RNAi activity that is inherently required by the claimed “siRNA”. That is, the single siRNA structure is insufficient to adequately describe the required structure-function correlation for the entire genus of siRNAs having the structural limitations as broadly claimed, especially in light of the fact that the activity of “formula (I)” when incorporated into the antisense strand was known to be unpredictable as evidenced by the instant specification’s own disclosure as well as the prior art teachings of Templin et al. (US 2011/0313020 A1) and Theile et al. (WO 2018/098328 A1). In fact, it was known in the art that RNAi activity is highly dependent on chemical modification pattern in both strands as evidenced by Fitzgerald et al. (US 2017/0260527 A1), who demonstrate that a substantial RNAi-mediated target expression level inhibition is obtained by an siRNA having the chemical modification patterns similar to those disclosed in Tables 26 and 66 of the instant specification. See Fitzgerald’s Figure 16B reproduced below.
PNG
media_image4.png
448
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As shown above, only “AD-66241” is shown to provide RNAi activity compared to “PBS” negative control, wherein “AD-66241” has substantially similar chemical modifications in both strands as the siRNAs in Tables 26 and 66 of the instant specification. See Fitzgerald’s Table 12 disclosing “AD-66241” as reproduced below.
PNG
media_image5.png
32
1054
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hence, it is clear that RNAi activity, the function required by the claimed siRNA structure, is unpredictable and is highly dependent on chemical modifications in both strands as evidenced by the prior art teachings provided by Fitzgerald and the disclosure of the instant application.
In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that the instant specification fails to adequately describe the instantly claimed genus in such a way as to reasonably convey that the instant co-inventors had possession of the entire genus as now claimed as of the filing date sought in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Milstein et al. (WO 2020/132227 A2).
Milstein discloses a double-stranded siRNA that is fully chemically modified in both strands that are each at least 15 nucleotides in length, wherein the antisense strand comprises a destabilizing modification that “is located at position 7 from the 5’ end of the antisense strand”, while other positions are modified with stabilizing modifications including 2’-F and 2’-O-methyl, wherein the destabilizing modification includes the following structure:
PNG
media_image6.png
112
124
media_image6.png
Greyscale
See pages 17-18 and 99-101.
Milstein discloses that the siRNA comprises “two phosphorothioate internucleotide linkage modifications at position 1 and 2, and two phosphorothioate internucleotide linkage modifications at position 22 and 23 of the sense strand (counting from the 5’-end)”. See page 119.
Milstein teaches that the 3’ end of the sense strand can be conjugated with a trivalent GalNAc moiety (“L96”) and the double-stranded siRNA is designed to target an mRNA of interest and an effective amount can be used in a method of inhibiting target mRNA expression in a subject in vivo for treatment purpose. See pages 188-189 and 242-245.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4-8, and 14-18 are described by Milstein et al.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Theile et al. (WO 2018/098328 A1).
Theile discloses a double-stranded siRNA that is fully chemically modified in both strands that are each at least 15 nucleotides in length, wherein the antisense strand comprises a single (S)-glycol nucleic acid (GNA) modification “at position 7 of the antisense strand, counting from 5’ end”, while other positions are modified with stabilizing modifications including 2’-F and 2’-O-methyl, wherein the 3’ end of the sense strand is conjugated with a trivalent GalNAc moiety (“ASGPR ligand”), wherein the antisense strand comprises “phosphorothioate internucleotide linkages between nucleotide positions 21 and 22, and between nucleotide positions 22 and 23 (counting from the 5’ end)” for a 23-mer antisense strand, wherein the siRNAs comprising (S)-GNA at position 7 of the antisense strand are effective in reducing target mRNA levels in mice in vivo. See paragraphs 0016, 0078-00100, 00133-00135, 00237, 00239-00242, 00491.
Theile discloses the structure of (S)-GNA in Figure 28 as reproduced below.
PNG
media_image7.png
180
128
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Theile discloses a sense strand having the modification pattern of 5’-MMMMMMFMFFFMMMMMMMMMM(L), wherein M” represents 2’-O-methyl (thus 2’-methoxy), F represents 2’-F, and L represents a trivalent GalNAc moiety. See Table 9 disclosing the following sense strand:
PNG
media_image8.png
32
438
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12, and 14-18 are described by Theile et al.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-20 of copending Application No. 18/287,756.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant generic claims are anticipated by the species claims of the ‘756 application drawn to a specific siRNA sequence with specific SEQ ID NOs, wherein the specific antisense strand sequence comprises the instantly claimed modification at one of positions 2-8 including position 7.
Claims 1 and 4-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/710,716.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant generic claims are anticipated by the species claims of the ‘716 application drawn to a specific siRNA sequence with specific SEQ ID NOs, wherein the specific antisense strand sequence comprises the instantly claimed modification at one of positions 2-8 including position 7.
Claims 1 and 4-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-17, 19-23, and 25 of copending Application No. 18/719,828.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant generic claims are anticipated by the species claims of the ‘828 application drawn to a specific siRNA sequence with specific SEQ ID NOs, wherein the specific antisense strand sequence comprises the instantly claimed modification at one of positions 2-8 including position 7.
Claims 1 and 4-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of copending Application No. 18/726,560.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by and overlap in scope with the ‘560 claims drawn to an siRNA whose antisense strand sequence comprises the instantly claimed modification at one of positions 2-8 including position 7.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA H SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8am - 6:30pm.
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, RAM SHUKLA can be reached at 571-272-0735. 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.
/DANA H SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1635