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 .
Claims 30 and 31 have been cancelled. Claims 32, 33, 36, 39, 40, 44, and 46-49 have undergone amendments. Thus, Claims 32-49, submitted on 9 January 2026, represent all claims currently under consideration.
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.
Response to Amendment
The objection to Figures 1-5 is withdrawn. Applicant has provided higher quality images which are easier to interpret.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of Claims 30, 31, 33, 36, 39, 40, 44, and 46-49 are each withdrawn. Applicant has cancelled Claims 30 and 31, rendering those rejections moot. Applicant has amended Claims 33, 36, 39, 40, 44, and 46-49 to remedy the issues of indefiniteness which were cited in the previous Office Action.
The provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection of Claims 30-32 and 39-49 over Claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Application No. 18/879,388 in view of Acharya and Casares is maintained. While Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer, the terminal disclaimer has not been approved. As such, the rejection is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) rejection of Claims 30-32 and 39-49 over Xie-1 is withdrawn. Applicant has filed a certified copy of CN 202011156037 (Filed 26 October 2020), while Xie-1 has an international filing date of 16 April 2021. Claims 30-32 and 39-49 of the examined application are supported in this filing, and as such, the effective filing date of the examined application is prior to the effective filing date of the disclosure of Xie-1, and thus does not qualify as prior art.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claims 30-32 and 39-49 over Xie-1 in view of Casares is withdrawn. Applicant has filed a certified copy of CN 202011156037 (Filed 26 October 2020), while Xie-1 has an international filing date of 16 April 2021. Claims 30-32 and 39-49 of the examined application are supported in this filing, and thus, Xie-1 does not qualify as prior art to the examined claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claims 30-32 and 39-49 over Xiaodong in view of Acharya and Casares is withdrawn. Applicant has filed a certified copy of CN 202011156037 (Filed 26 October 2020), while Xiaodong has a publication date of 20 November 2020. Claims 30-32 and 39-49 of the examined application are supported in this filing, and as such, the effective filing date of the examined application is prior to the publication and effective prior art date of Xiadong, and thus does not qualify as prior art.
Response to Arguments
The non-statutory patenting rejection of Claims 30-32 and 39-49 over Claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,351,599 in view of Acharya and Casares is maintained. The Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive. Applicant claims that one of ordinary skill in the art could have not a reasonable expectation of success of the remarkable properties of the hydrobromide salts of the compounds of the invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pharmaceutical salt formation is a cornerstone in drug development, offering a robust, economical and industry-friendly option for improving the crucial physicochemical properties of drugs. Furthermore, “the mere selection of a particular salt from among a finite number of predictable options is generally considered obvious” (See MPEP § 2143 1 (E)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to narrow the group of potential salt-formers to a group of 53 anions known to form pharmaceutically acceptable salts, which would be an acceptable number to form a “reasonable expectation of success”. The use of the technique of Casares to form this salt is prima facie obvious combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 I (A)); salt formation is a standard practice in the pharmaceutical arts, and the methods of Casares for formation of salts of pharmaceutical compounds are known in the pharmaceutical arts. The artisan would recognize this, and realize that this technique could be applied to for the hydrobromide salt form of the examined application.
The non-statutory patenting rejection of Claims 30-32 and 39-49 over Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 15, 22, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,923 in view of Acharya and Casares is maintained. The Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive. Applicant claims that one of ordinary skill in the art could have not a reasonable expectation of success of the remarkable properties of the hydrobromide salts of the compounds of the invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pharmaceutical salt formation is a cornerstone in drug development, offering a robust, economical and industry-friendly option for improving the crucial physicochemical properties of drugs. Furthermore, “the mere selection of a particular salt from among a finite number of predictable options is generally considered obvious” (See MPEP § 2143 1 (E)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to narrow the group of potential salt-formers to a group of 53 anions known to form pharmaceutically acceptable salts, which would be an acceptable number to form a “reasonable expectation of success”. The use of the technique of Casares to form this salt is prima facie obvious combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 I (A)); salt formation is a standard practice in the pharmaceutical arts, and the methods of Casares for formation of salts of pharmaceutical compounds are known in the pharmaceutical arts. The artisan would recognize this, and realize that this technique could be applied to for the hydrobromide salt form of the examined application.
Double Patenting- REJECTIONS MAINTAINED
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 30-32 and 39-49 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/879,388 (Amended Claims of 27 December 2024) (‘388) in view of Acharya (Dosage Form Design Considerations, Volume I, 2018, Pages 435-472) and Casares (Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 67, 2015, Pages 812-822).
Claim 1 of ‘388 is directed to the use of a compound represented by formula I, or a stereoisomer, solvate, hydrate, prodrug, stable isotopic derivative, and pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, in the preparation of an inhibitor for inhibiting replication of feline coronavirus or calcivirus; and/or the use of a compound represented by formula I, or a stereoisomer, solvate, hydrate, prodrug, stable isotopic derivative, and pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof in the preparation of a medicament for treating and/or preventing and alleviating a related disease caused by feline coronavirus or calcivirus infection
PNG
media_image1.png
206
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1-R3 are selected from hydrogen, substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 alkanoyl and C3-C10 cycloalkylformyl, wherein the substitution is with one or more Q, Q is selected from hydrogen, cyano, amino, hydroxy, and halogen, and R4 is hydrogen, deuterium, cyano, amino, hydroxy, and halogen. Claim 8 claims the use according to claim 1 wherein the compound is selected from a group, which includes compound 27
PNG
media_image2.png
173
190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and compound 42
PNG
media_image3.png
163
194
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which are identical to compounds claimed in the examined application.
The difference between ‘388 and the claims at issue is the formation of a salt, and the methods of forming this salt.
The teachings of Archaya and Casares are described previously and are fully incorporated into this rejection.
‘388, Archaya, and Casares are considered analogous to the claimed invention as all are involved in the development of pharmaceuticals. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nucleoside of ‘388 by forming a salt as taught by Archaya using the methods of Casares as Archaya teaches that salt formation is a commonly done procedure in pharmaceutical development, allowing for improvements in the solubility, pharmacokinetics, and other physicochemical properties of the drug. The formation of salts of the compounds of ‘388 is prima facie obvious use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 1 (C)); the compounds of ‘388 are known in the art, while the formation of a salt is commonly employed in the pharmaceutical arts, predictably resulting in a form which has improved solubility. Pharmaceutical salt formation is a cornerstone in drug development, offering a robust, economical and industry-friendly option for improving the crucial physicochemical properties of drugs. Furthermore, “the mere selection of a particular salt from among a finite number of predictable options is generally considered obvious” (See MPEP § 2143 1 (E)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to narrow the group of potential salt-formers to a group of 53 anions known to form pharmaceutically acceptable salts, which would be an acceptable number to form a “reasonable expectation of success”. The use of the technique of Casares to form this salt is prima facie obvious combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 I (A)); salt formation is known method within the pharmaceutical arts, and the methods of Casares for formation of salts of pharmaceutical compounds are known in the pharmaceutical arts. The artisan would recognize this, and realize that this technique could be applied to for the hydrobromide salt form of the examined application.
Regarding the specific ratios, stirring lengths, and heating, these conditions can be determined through routine experimentation through the art conditions taught by Casares (See MPEP § 2144.05 II (A)); the artisan would recognize that the ratios of drug to the solvents and acid can be modified to optimize the rate of formation and yield of the salt, as well as by optimizing the stirring time and heating to improve the supersaturation of the solution, resulting in improved yield and reduced crystallization time. Regarding the use of the solvent C, the addition of anti-solvents during salt formation and crystallization is a common technique employed in the pharmaceutical arts to improve the rate of crystallization by effectively reducing the solubility of the solute and promoting crystallization, and the artisan would recognize this, and could arrive at the use of an anti-solvent to increase the yield of the salt form using the method of Casares.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 32 and 39-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,351,599 (Patent Date: 8 July 2025) (‘599) in view of Acharya (Dosage Form Design Considerations, Volume I, 2018, Pages 435-472) and Casares (Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 67, 2015, Pages 812-822).
Claim 1 of ‘599 is directed to a compound of Formula (I) or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof or a crystalline hydrate thereof or a solvate thereof
PNG
media_image4.png
220
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is cyano, R2 is OR3, R3 and R5 are selected from -C(O)-, C3-C6 cycloalkyl, C1-C20 alkanoyl, and amino C1-C20 alkanyol, hydrogen, and -C(O)-C3-C6 cycloalkyl; R4 is hydrogen, deuterium, and halogen; R6 is amino, R7 is hydrogen; R8 is selected from hydrogen, deuterium, and halogen; and X is -CH2- or -CD2-. Claim 3 claims a method for inhibiting viral replication and/or treating, preventing, and/or alleviating a disease associated with a viral infection or a related disease caused by the virus, the method comprising administering an active ingredient or a formulation containing an active ingredient wherein the active ingredient is the compound of Formula (I) according to claim 1 or the pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof or the crystalline hydrate thereof or the solvate thereof. Claim 4 claims the method of claim 3 wherein the virus is coronavirus, influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus, Flaviviridae virus, filoviridae virus, or porcine epidemic diarrhea virus. Claim 5 claims the method of claim 3 wherein the virus can be SARS-CoV-2. Claim 8 claims a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound of Formula (I) according to claim 1 or the pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof or the crystalline hydrate thereof or the solvate thereof; and one or more pharmaceutically acceptable carriers. Claim 17 claims the method of claim 3 wherein the compound of Formula (I) is selected from the group which contains the compound A131
PNG
media_image5.png
257
408
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and the compound A151
PNG
media_image6.png
256
394
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
The difference between ‘599 and the claims at issue is the formation of a salt, and the methods of forming this salt.
The teachings of Archaya and Casares are described previously and are fully incorporated into this rejection.
‘599, Archaya, and Casares are considered analogous to the claimed invention as all are involved in the development of pharmaceuticals. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nucleoside of ‘599 by forming a salt as taught by Archaya using the methods of Casares as Archaya teaches that salt formation is a commonly done procedure in pharmaceutical development, allowing for improvements in the solubility, pharmacokinetics, and other physicochemical properties of the drug. The formation of salts of the compounds of ‘599 is prima facie obvious use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 1 (C)); the compounds of ‘599 are known in the art, while the formation of a salt is commonly employed in the pharmaceutical arts, predictably resulting in a form which has improved solubility. Pharmaceutical salt formation is a cornerstone in drug development, offering a robust, economical and industry-friendly option for improving the crucial physicochemical properties of drugs. Furthermore, “the mere selection of a particular salt from among a finite number of predictable options is generally considered obvious” (See MPEP § 2143 1 (E)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to narrow the group of potential salt-formers to a group of 53 anions known to form pharmaceutically acceptable salts, which would be an acceptable number to form a “reasonable expectation of success”. The use of the technique of Casares to form this salt is prima facie obvious combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 I (A)); salt formation for pharmaceuticals is standard is the art, and the methods of Casares for formation of salts of pharmaceutical compounds are known in the pharmaceutical arts. The artisan would recognize this, and realize that this technique could be applied to for the hydrobromide salt form of the examined application.
Regarding the specific ratios, stirring lengths, and heating, these conditions can be determined through routine experimentation through the art conditions taught by Casares (See MPEP § 2144.05 II (A)); the artisan would recognize that the ratios of drug to the solvents and acid can be modified to optimize the rate of formation and yield of the salt, as well as by optimizing the stirring time and heating to improve the supersaturation of the solution, resulting in improved yield and reduced crystallization time. Regarding the use of the solvent C, the addition of anti-solvents during salt formation and crystallization is a common technique employed in the pharmaceutical arts to improve the rate of crystallization by effectively reducing the solubility of the solute and promoting crystallization, and the artisan would recognize this, and could arrive at the use of an anti-solvent to increase the yield of the salt form using the method of Casares.
Claims 32 and 39-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 15, 22, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,923 (Patent Date: 5 March 2024) (‘932) in view of Acharya (Dosage Form Design Considerations, Volume I, 2018, Pages 435-472) and Casares (Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 67, 2015, Pages 812-822).
Claim 1 of ‘932 is directed to a compound of formula (I) or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof:
PNG
media_image7.png
278
498
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is cyano, R2 is OR3 or C1-C6 alkoxy, R3 is hydrogen, C1-C20 alkanoyl, or aminoC1-C20 alkanoyl, R4 is hydrogen, R5 is C1-C20 alkanoyl or amino C1-C20 alkanoyl, R6 is amino, R7 is hydrogen, R8 is selected from hydrogen, deuterium, or halogen, and X is -CH2- or -CD2-. Claim 8 claims a compound selected from the group which includes A131
PNG
media_image8.png
322
487
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and A151
PNG
media_image9.png
331
482
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. Claim 10 claims a method for inhibiting the replication of a virus, or treating, preventing or alleviating a disease caused by a viral infection comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of an active ingredient or formulation containing an active ingredient and pharmaceutically acceptable carriers wherein the active ingredient is a compound of Formula (I), and the virus is selected from the group which includes coronavirus infecting human. Claim 11 claims the method of claim 10 wherein the virus is selected from the group which includes SARS-CoV-2. Claim 15 claims a pharmaceutical composition of a compound of Formula I or pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Claim 22 claims a method for inhibiting the replication of a virus, or treating, preventing or alleviating a disease caused by a viral infection comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of an active ingredient or formulation containing an active ingredient and pharmaceutically acceptable carriers wherein the active ingredient is a compound of Claim 8 and the virus is selected from the group which includes coronavirus infecting human. Claim 23 claims the method of claim 22 wherein the virus is selected from the group which includes SARS-CoV-2.
The difference between ‘932 and the claims at issue is the formation of a salt, and the methods of forming this salt.
The teachings of Archaya and Casares are described previously and are fully incorporated into this rejection.
‘932, Archaya, and Casares are considered analogous to the claimed invention as all are involved in the development of pharmaceuticals. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nucleoside of ‘932 by forming a salt as taught by Archaya using the methods of Casares as Archaya teaches that salt formation is a commonly done procedure in pharmaceutical development, allowing for improvements in the solubility, pharmacokinetics, and other physicochemical properties of the drug. The formation of salts of the compounds of ‘932 is prima facie obvious use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 1 (C)); the compounds of ‘932 are known in the art, while the formation of a salt is commonly employed in the pharmaceutical arts, predictably resulting in a form which has improved solubility. Pharmaceutical salt formation is a cornerstone in drug development, offering a robust, economical and industry-friendly option for improving the crucial physicochemical properties of drugs. Furthermore, “the mere selection of a particular salt from among a finite number of predictable options is generally considered obvious” (See MPEP § 2143 1 (E)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to narrow the group of potential salt-formers to a group of 53 anions known to form pharmaceutically acceptable salts, which would be an acceptable number to form a “reasonable expectation of success”. The use of the technique of Casares to form this salt is prima facie obvious combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 I (A)); salt formation for pharmaceuticals is standard is the art, and the methods of Casares for formation of salts of pharmaceutical compounds are known in the pharmaceutical arts. The artisan would recognize this, and realize that this technique could be applied to for the hydrobromide salt form of the examined application.
Regarding the specific ratios, stirring lengths, and heating, these conditions can be determined through routine experimentation through the art conditions taught by Casares (See MPEP § 2144.05 II (A)); the artisan would recognize that the ratios of drug to the solvents and acid can be modified to optimize the rate of formation and yield of the salt, as well as by optimizing the stirring time and heating to improve the supersaturation of the solution, resulting in improved yield and reduced crystallization time. Regarding the use of the solvent C, the addition of anti-solvents during salt formation and crystallization is a common technique employed in the pharmaceutical arts to improve the rate of crystallization by effectively reducing the solubility of the solute and promoting crystallization, and the artisan would recognize this, and could arrive at the use of an anti-solvent to increase the yield of the salt form using the method of Casares.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art, while teaching the compound which is claimed, as well as the hydrobromide salt form, and its utility for treating viral infections, does not teach the specific polymorphs which are claimed, nor does it teach forms which have the claimed XRPD patterns, DSC spectrums, or moisture content properties. The prior art also does not teach an amorphous form of the hydrobromide salt form of the claimed compounds.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Claims 32 and 39-49 are rejected.
Claims 33-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
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 PHILLIP MATTHEW RZECZYCKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 730AM-5PM 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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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.
/P.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1625 /Andrew D Kosar/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625