DETAILED ACTION
All rejections and objections not mentioned below have been withdrawn.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 63/070,343, filed on 8/26/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2023 , 09/27/2024 05/30/2025, 01/08/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 -New Due to Amendments
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 157, 190, 213, 219, 221, 223, 285, 291, 310 and 322 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 157, 190, 213, 219, 221, 223, 285, 291, 310 and 322 recites the limitation "the compound" in claim 157 or 190. However, there are three compounds that the limitation could be referring too and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 322 recites the limitation "Formula (I)" in the last two lines. Due to the amendments Formula (I) has been deleted from the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103- Updated due to Amendments
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 157, 190, 213, 219, 221, 223, 285, 291, 310 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOWERTON (HOWERTON et al., US 2020255436 A1, 2020-08-13, previously provided) in view of HOWERTON (HOWERTON et al., WO2019210266A1, 2019-10-31, previously provided) as evidenced by Stöppler (Stöppler et al ., Definition of Body surface area, 2025, previously provided).
The reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “In one embodiment, the present disclosure provides 3-(4-chloro-2-(morpholin-4-yl)thiazol-5-yl)-7-(1-ethyl-propyl)-2,5-dimethylpyrazolo(1,5-a)pyrimidine or 4-(4-chloro-5-(2,5-dimethyl-7-(pentan-3-yl)pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidin-3-yl)thiazol-2-yl)morpholine, wherein the 7-(1-ethyl-propyl) moiety comprises at least one deuterium”[0018] and “The present disclosure provides forms of CRF antagonists and methods using such CRF antagonists for treating diseases. In some embodiments, such CRF antagonists are used to treat congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH)”[0003]. The reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “In some embodiments, the methods described herein administer a compound of Formula I, II, III, and IV, or Compounds 1 or 2 , or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof twice a day”[0181]. This helps to teach claims 157, 190.
PNG
media_image1.png
361
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein, 3-(4-chloro-2-(morpholin-4-yl)thiazol-5-yl)-7-(1-ethyl-propyl)-2,5-dimethylpyrazolo(1,5-a)pyrimidine is the structure below:
Wherein, R1=R2=CH2CH3, R3=methyl, R4=methyl, RA=H=RB.
The reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “In one embodiment, the 7-(1-ethyl-propyl) moiety comprises 1 deuterium, 2 deuterium, 3 deuterium, 4 deuterium, 5 deuterium, 6 deuterium, 7 deuterium, 8 deuterium, 9 deuterium, 10 deuterium, or 11 deuterium”[0099]. This helps to teach claims 157, 190, 213, 219, 221, 223, 285, 291, 310.
The reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “In one embodiment, one or both of the 2,5-dimethyl groups independent comprises 3 deuterium, or 6 deuterium” [0099]. This helps to teach claim 157, 190, 213, 219, 221, 223, 285, 291, 310.
The reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition comprises about 400 mg of a compound of Formula I, II, III, and IV, or Compounds 1 or 2, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof”[0160]. This helps to teach claim 190.
The reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “Disclosed herein is a method of treating congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) in a subject in need thereof, comprising administering a combination of a compound of Formula I, II, III, and IV, or Compounds 1 or 2 , or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof; and a glucocorticoid. In some embodiments, the amount of glucocorticoid administered is reduced as compared to a method not comprising administering a compound of Formula I, II, III, and IV, or Compounds 1 or 2 , or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof. In some embodiments, the methods described herein reduce the amount of a glucocorticoid administered from a supraphysiologic amount to a physiologic amount. In some embodiments, the methods described herein reduce the symptoms associated with high-dose glucocorticoid therapy. In some embodiments, the symptoms associated with high-dose glucocorticoid therapy are obesity, insulin resistance, metabolic abnormalities, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, or osteoporosis”[0190-192]. This helps to teach claim 221, 223 and 285.The instant specification defines: “In some embodiments, the corticosteroid is a glucocorticoid” [0072].
The instant claims recite 11 mg/m2/day glucocorticoid HOWERTON does not use the same units so one must convert the units to compare the prior art. The average adult human body in m2 is approximately(Stöppler) 1.7 m2. This means that 1.7 m2 x 11 mg/m2/day =18.7 mg/ day. The reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “In some embodiments, the glucocorticoid is administered at a dose between about 0.1 mg/day and about 25 mg/day” [0195] and “In some embodiments, a compound of Formula I, II, III, and IV, or Compounds 1 or 2 , or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof, and the glucocorticoid are administered sequentially”[0179]. This helps to teach claim 285.
The reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “ In some embodiments, the capsule has a dose strength of up to 200 mg”[0113] and “In some embodiments, the methods described herein administer a compound of Formula I, II, III, and IV, or Compounds 1 or 2 , or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof once a day”[0181]. This helps to teach claim 285.
The reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “In some embodiments, molded tablets are made by molding a mixture of the powdered a compound of Formula I, II, III, and IV, or Compounds 1 or 2 moistened with an inert liquid diluent”[0116] and “Glidants such as silicon dioxide”[0138]. This helps to teach claim 291 and 310.
The reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “In one embodiment, the pharmaceutical composition is in an oral dosage form. In one embodiment, the oral dosage form is selected from the group consisting of a tablet, a capsule, a buccal tablet, a sub-lingual table, an orally-disintegrating tablet, a thin film, a liquid solution, a liquid suspension, a syrup, a powder, solid crystals, minitabs, coated pellets and sachets”[0023] and “In some embodiments, the capsule is formed using materials which include, but are not limited to, natural or synthetic gelatin, pectin, casein, collagen, protein, modified starch, polyvinylpyrrolidone, acrylic polymers, cellulose derivatives, or any combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the capsule is formed using preservatives, coloring and opacifying agents, flavorings and sweeteners, sugars, gastroresistant substances, or any combinations thereof”[0111]. This helps to teach claim 310.
The reference HOWERTON 2020 does not teach “wherein the amount of the compound of Formula (I), or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, in the first administration is less than the amount of the compound of Formula (I), or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, in the second and any subsequent administrations” (claim 157, 190, 213, 219, 221, 223, 285, 291, 310). The exact formulas of claims 329, 330, 334. The reference HOWERTON 2020 does not teach reducing the symptoms of claim 213. The reference HOWERTON 2020 does not teach the specific biomarkers of claim 219.
The reference HOWERTON 2019 teaches the following compound ( reference claim 12). Wherein, “… structures depicted herein are also meant to include compounds which differ only in the presence of one or more isotopically enriched atoms. For example, compounds having the present structures except for the replacement of a hydrogen by a deuterium or tritium, or the replacement of a carbon by13 C- or14 C-enriched carbon are within the scope of this invention” [0088].
PNG
media_image2.png
198
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The reference HOWERTON 2019 teaches (reference claim 13):
PNG
media_image3.png
62
577
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The reference HOWERTON 2019 teaches “The pharmaceutical compositions can be administered on a regimen of one (1) to four (4) times per day, including once, twice, three times, and four times per day” [0230] and “In certain embodiments, the compound of Formula (I), or an isotopic variant thereof; or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, solvate, hydrate, or prodrug thereof is administered in an amount of about 5 mg twice daily for a period of up to at least about 14 days. In certain embodiments, the compound of Formula (I), or an isotopic variant thereof…”[0234]. The reference also teaches “Dosages may be varied depending upon the requirements of the patient and the compound being employed. The dose administered to a patient, in the context of the present invention should be sufficient to effect a beneficial therapeutic response in the patient over time. The size of the dose also will be determined by the existence, nature, and extent of any adverse side-effects. Determination of the proper dosage for a particular situation is within the skill of the practitioner. Generally, treatment is initiated with smaller dosages which are less than the optimum dose of the compound. Thereafter, the dosage is increased by small increments until the optimum effect under circumstances is reached. Dosage amounts and intervals can be adjusted individually to provide levels of the administered compound effective for the particular clinical indication being treated. This will provide a therapeutic regimen that is commensurate with the severity of the individual's disease state” [0135]. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955.). This helps to teach claim 157, 213, 219, 285 and 221.
The reference HOWERTON 2019 teaches “ Testicular adrenal rest tumor(s)” or“TART” and/or ovarian adrenal rest tumor(s) are a complication of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), which may develop from ectopic remnants of intra-testicular adrenal tissue stimulated by adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) hypersecretion. TART lesions are typically located within the rete testis and are bilateral, synchronous, nodular and multiple. TART can lead to testicular structural damage, spermatogenesis disorders, infertility and mass-forming lesions” [0118]. This helps to teach claim 213.
The reference HOWERTON 2019 teaches “Compound 1, a potent and selective CRFi receptor antagonist, offers a novel nonsteroidal oral treatment approach for CAH. Compound 1 was well tolerated and efficacious in reducing excess ACTH, 170HP, and androstenedione in patients with classic CAH” [0338]. This helps to teach claim 219.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified HOWERTON 2020 with HOWERTON 2019 because they both discuss the same compounds (deuterated Tildacerfont) for the same purpose of treating congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). Thus one would have a reasonable expectation of success of combining the two methods since they read on very similar methods and one would be motivated to do so to treat CAH using combinations of those methods were one reads on more specifics than the other to acquire more details. While the exact formulas of claims 157 and 190 are not taught it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to envision these deuteration locations in light of HOWERTON 2020 pointing out specific locations on the molecule and number of D atoms that could be added and because there is a limited number of locations those specific atoms could be located on the molecule. For example the first and second compounds of instant claims 157 and 190 are immediately obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the references because the reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “In one embodiment, one or both of the 2,5-dimethyl groups independent comprises 3 deuterium, or 6 deuterium” [0099]. Since 2,5-dimethyl groups independent comprises 3 deuterium is specifically mentioned it would be obvious to achieve compound 1 of the instant invention. The second compound would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “In one embodiment, the 7-(1-ethyl-propyl) moiety comprises 1 deuterium…”[0099] and since there are only 11 locations for 1 deuterium all location combinations would be immediately oblivious to one of ordinary skill in the art. One would be motivated to make these compounds because the compounds of the reference are taught to treat congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), to achieve advantages of deuterated compound (e.g., increased metabolic stability, longer half-lives, improved safety profile, better pharmacokinetic, etc) and one would have a reasonable expectation of success because the compounds are specifically pointed out by the reference.
The specific combination of features claimed is disclosed within the broad generic ranges taught by the reference but such “picking and choosing” within several variables does not necessarily give rise to anticipation. Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec., 868 F.2d 1251, 1262 (Fed. Circ. 1989).
However, it must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742.
Since all limitations of the current claims have been found within the two HOWERTON references and the references have been found obvious to combine and the limitation found are doing no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.
Claim(s) 157, and 322 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOWERTON (HOWERTON et al., US 2020255436 A1, 2020-08-13, previously provided) in view of HOWERTON (HOWERTON et al., WO2019210266A1, 2019-10-31, previously provided) and further in view of Al-kasmia (Al-kasmia et al., Mechanical microencapsulation: The best technique in taste masking for the manufacturing scale - Effect of polymer encapsulation on drug targeting. Journal of Controlled Release 260 (2017) 134–141, previously provided).
The references HOWERTON has been discussed supra in the 103 rejection above (which is incorporated herein by reference). The reference HOWERTON 2020 also teaches “In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition is formulated as a capsule. In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition is formulated as a hard gel capsule. In some embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition is formulated as a soft gel capsule. In some embodiments, the capsule is formed using materials which include, but are not limited to, natural or synthetic gelatin, pectin, casein, collagen, protein, modified starch, polyvinylpyrrolidone, acrylic polymers, cellulose derivatives, or any combinations thereof”[0110-0111] and “In some embodiments, the tablet is coated with a coating material, e.g., a sealant. In some embodiments, the coating material is water soluble. In some embodiments, the coating material comprises a polymer, plasticizer, a pigment, or any combination thereof… In some embodiments, the coating material allows immediate disintegration for fast release of Compound 1. In some embodiments, the coating material is pigmented, clear, or white. In some embodiments, the coating is an enteric coating. ”[0121]. The reference also teaches “Poorly soluble drugs may be difficult to formulate using technologies such as high shear wet granulation. Optimum delivery of poorly soluble drugs may require complex technologies such as solid solutions or amorphous dispersions (for example hot melt extrusion or spray drying), nano-formulations or lipid-based formulations”[0100].
The references HOWERTON do not teach the specific polymer-drug ratios of claim 322.
The reference Al-kasmia teaches “Effect of polymer encapsulation on drug targeting” (title) and “Regarding spray drying, both drug and polymer are dissolved in solvent then sprayed into temperature controlled chamber, thus the solvent evaporates and polymer encapsulates the drug [30,31]. (Table 3) shows the drugs masked by microencapsulation technique in the last three years”(page 136). The reference Al-kasmia also teaches some of the most common polymer drug ratios (table 7) for different masking techniques including spray drying which is included under a mechanical technique (page 138). This ratios across all methods are between 1:2-1:4. Thus this appears to be a common selected range for drug to polymer. The reference also teaches " Drug taste masking is a crucial process for the preparation of pediatric and geriatric formulations as well as fast dissolving tablets. Taste masking techniques aim to prevent drug release in saliva and at the same time to obtain the desired release profile in gastrointestinal tract. Several taste masking methods are reported, however this review has focused on a group of promising methods; complexation, encapsulation, and hot melting. The effects of each method on the physicochemical properties of the drug are described in details. Furthermore, a scoring system was established to evaluate each process using recent published data of selected factors. These include, input, process, and output factors that are related to each taste masking method. Input factors include the attributes of the materials used for taste masking. Process factors include equipment type and process parameters. Finally, output factors, include taste masking quality and yield. As a result, Mechanical microencapsulation obtained the highest score (5/8) along with complexation with cyclodextrin suggesting that these methods are the most preferable for drug taste masking”(abstract). This helps to teach claim 322.
PNG
media_image4.png
367
1083
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified HOWERTON 2020 and HOWERTON 2019 with Al-kasmia because HOWERTON 2020 teaches polymers and spray drying for drug delivery and so does Al-kasmia. Thus it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to use the technique and the polymers suggested by HOWERTON with the general suggested ratios for the same technique as provided by Al-kasmia because it is a ratio that is meant for the spray draying technique. One would be motivated to do so to mask the taste of the drug.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that their newly amended claims that restrict the compounds to examples 1 to 3 make the claims unobvious because compounds 1-3 are not described by the cited references. This argument is not found persuasive because of the reasons below.
While the exact formulas of claims 157 and 190 are not taught it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to envision these deuteration locations in light of HOWERTON 2020 pointing out specific locations on the molecule and number of D atoms that could be added and because there is a limited number of locations those specific atoms could be located on the molecule. For example the first and second compounds of instant claims 157 and 190 are immediately obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the references because the reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “In one embodiment, one or both of the 2,5-dimethyl groups independent comprises 3 deuterium, or 6 deuterium” [0099]. Since 2,5-dimethyl groups independent comprises 3 deuterium is specifically mentioned it would be obvious to achieve compound 1 of the instant invention. The second compound would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the reference HOWERTON 2020 teaches “In one embodiment, the 7-(1-ethyl-propyl) moiety comprises 1 deuterium…”[0099] and since there are only 11 locations for 1 deuterium all location combinations would be immediately oblivious to one of ordinary skill in the art. One would be motivated to make these compounds because the compounds of the reference are taught to treat congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) and one would have a reasonable expectation of success because the compounds are specifically pointed out by the reference.
The specific combination of features claimed is disclosed within the broad generic ranges taught by the reference but such “picking and choosing” within several variables does not necessarily give rise to anticipation. Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec., 868 F.2d 1251, 1262 (Fed. Circ. 1989).
However, it must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742.
The applicant also argues that Al-kasmia is not relevant regarding deuterated tildacerfont. This argument is not persuasive because Al-kasmia was not used in regards to deuterated tildacerfont (other references were used for deuterated tildacerfont) and because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Claims 157, 190, 213, 219, 221, 223, 285, 291, 310 and 322 are rejected.
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 ALISON AZAR SALAMATIAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4584. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30am-5pm EST Friday 7:30-4pm EST (every other Friday off).
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, Kortney 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.
/A.A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1627
/Kortney L. Klinkel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1627