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 09/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 3 is rejected as indefinite for claiming a polypeptide by its function rather than its structure. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 2 is rejected as an improper dependent form. Claim 2 does not limit the claim from which it depends because it recites a sequence with more than 816 residues , which was a limitation in Claim 1 . Claims 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 are rejected for failing to further limit the claim from which it depends . These claims are drawn to an embodiment where the polypeptide is a specific portion of the isolated polypeptide of Claim 1; however, “comprises” is open-ended such that a sequence only needs to contain the recited polypeptide portion . In other words, the dependent claims do not limit the isolated polypeptide of ApoB100 in Claim 1, because , in at least in one embodiment, it already contains the claimed portions within it . Claims 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 overcome this rejection by using closed language ( i.e. “consists of”) to claim only a specific polypeptide fragment embodiment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 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. Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for inhibiting and delaying the progression of atherosclerosis in rodents , does not reasonably provide enablement for inhibiting, delaying the progression of, curing, preventing, palliative effects or prophylactic treatment in humans . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. MPEP § 2164.01(a) states that there are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to: A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d, 1400 (CAFC 1988) and MPEP 2164.01. The breadth of the claims and nature of the invention: The nature of the invention is complex, encompassing the treatment and prevention of atherosclerosis or any associated disease, disorder, condition thereof [0022]. The associated disease, disorder, condition is not limited. The specification defines “treating” as “reversing, alleviating, inhibiting the progress of, delaying the progression of, delaying the onset of, or preventing the disorder or condition” and treatment, which refers to the act of treating, "includes reference to curative, palliative and prophylactic treatment ” ( [0095]). Therefore, this claim encompasses the curing of any condition in animals or humans that can be construed to be related to atherosclerosis. When analyzing the scope of enablement, the claims are analyzed with respect to the teachings of the specification and are to be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." See MPEP 2111 [R-5]; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005); and In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550- 51 (CCPA 1969). The state of the prior art and level of predictability in the art: The level of predictability in the art depends, most importantly, on whether the claimed invention can be practiced by one of ordinary skill in the art. Due to a growing unmet need in public health, a treatment for atherosclerosis had become of increasing importance leading up to and since the time of instant filing. Drug therapies that lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) at the time of filing had mixed results depending on the stage of atherosclerosis development the intervention is applied. Wilkins et al specifically states: “… it is unclear if, once present, atherosclerosis can in fact be ‘ cured ’” (Wilkins et al., pg. 6, last paragraph ). Various other mechanistic approaches, including ALK1 receptor inhibitors, have shown promising results in preclinical models (Schleer US20250154264) . However, the state of the art teaches away from translation of preclinical models to humans, due to known differences in atherosclerosis development between the two species (Dunér, pg. 6, last paragraph) . Altogether, the state of the art teaches that delaying and even reversal of atherosclerosis progression in humans is possible, albeit not necessarily with the instant invention, if treatment is administered in its earlier stages. However, t hese treatments seek to lower LDL-C rather than targeting ALK1 or SR-B1 receptors. Given the unpredictability in the art, and the differences between animal and human translation, treating, preventing, or curing atherosclerosis with receptor inhibitors would need a more detailed disclosure in order to be enabling for one of ordinary skill in the art. Amount of direction provided by inventor and the existence of working examples: The specification teaches that administration of polypeptides reduces chylomicron and LDL uptake (Figs. 2A- D ). The specification also shows reduced aortic lesions in mice after polypeptide administration (Figure 4B). The specification defines inhibit as: “ reducing a function or activity to an extent sufficient to achieve a desired biological or physiological effect ” [0092]. Altogether, this provides enablement for inhibiting and delaying the progression of atherosclerosis in rodents . However, Figs. 4C-E show that polypeptide administration did not affect symptoms of atherosclerosis, including weight gain, plasma cholesterol, or plasma triglyceride, demonstrating that that claimed invention was not palliative. Lastly, there is no evidence in the disclosure to suggest that the current invention cured or prevented atherosclerosis in vivo , let alone any other related condition. There is no direction regarding the stage of atherosclerosis development at which the instant invention would be effective. Furthermore, there is no t sufficient evidence in the working examples or disclosure directed to treatment in humans that would address the concerns in the prior art about translatability to humans from preclinical models. While the working examples provide enablement for inhibiting , reducing and delaying the progression of atherosclerosis in rodents specifically , a person having ordinary skill in the art would still have to make a substantial inventive contribution in order to treat , prevent or cure any associated disease, disorder, or condition in humans , since there is no guidance within the disclosure as filed pertaining to those embodiment s . The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Given that the nature of the claims is in vivo treatment and prevention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have to perform multiple further experiments, in human clinical trials or in animal models, that are predictive of treatment and prevention in a representative number of conditions in order to demonstrate the invention could be used with a reasonable expectation of success. The amount of experimentation required for enabling guidance, commensurate in scope with what is claimed, goes beyond what is considered ‘routine' within the art, and constitutes undue further experimentation in order to use the treatment with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 38 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for inhibiting and delaying the progression of atherosclerosis via inhibition of both ALK1 and SR-B1 endothelial receptors or ALK1 endothelial receptors alone , does not reasonably provide enablement for doing so by inhibition of SR-B1 receptors alone . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The state of the prior art and level of predictability in the art: Based on the state of the art at the time of filing , one of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to inhibit or delay progression of atherosclerosis by inhibition of SR-B1 receptors alone . Huang et al. teaches that endothelium SR-B1 knockout in mice resulted in diminished atherosclerosis, but “ selective silencing of SR-B1 in hepatocytes resulted in more severe atherosclerosis and early deaths related to coronary artery occlusions and fibrotic myocardial lesions ” ( Huang et al., pg. 565, left column last line ). Bolanle et al., teaches that even years after the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled for successful atherosclerosis treatment by SR-B1 inhibition: “ It cannot be assumed that inhibition of SR-B1 will have a beneficial effect on human atherosclerosis. ” ( Bolanle et al., pg. 471, left side, third paragraph ). On the other hand, inhibition of ALK1 receptors as a therapeutic target for this condition was known in the art ( Schleer US20250154264 ). Amount of direction provided by inventor and the existence of working examples: None of the working examples are directed to treatment or prevention of atherosclerosis by inhibiting an SR-B1 endothelial cell receptor alone. There is no evidence in the disclosure to address the concerns known in the art at the time of filing with SR-B1 inhibition. Applicant demonstrates successful in vivo inhibition of chylomicron uptake targeting ALKI endothelial cell receptors (Fig. 5B). Furthermore, Applicant has demonstrated that administration of a polypeptide that interacts with both SR-B1 and ALK1 endothelial receptors effectively reduces aortic lesion area (Fig. 4B). One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to resolve the unpredictability of SR-B1 inhibition in the state of the art with the present disclosure such that they would have a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, Claim 38 is rejected for scope of enablement. Claims 34 and 38 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. In making a determination of whether the application complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, it is necessary to understand what Applicant has possession of and what Applicant is claiming. Claim 34 recites “inhibitor” of SR-B1 or ALK1 receptors that is capable of “blocking uptake or transcytosis”, which encompasses a genus of agents. Claim 38 recites “inhibitor” that is capable of “ treating or preventing atherosclerosis and/or an associated disease ”, which encompasses a genus of agents. These claims do not require that the genus of the claims possess any particular structure or other distinguishing feature that is characteristic of the genus as a whole. Therefore , the claims are drawn to a genus of “inhibitors” for which there is inadequate written description. The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see MPEP 2163(II)(3)(a)(i)(A), reduction to drawings MPEP 2163(II)(3)(a)(i)(B), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus MPEP 2163(II)(3)(a)(i)(C). In the instant case, the only identifying characteristic present in C laim 34 is a recitation of requisite activity ( e.g. capable of inhibiting SR-B1 or ALK1 ). Likewise, in Claim 38, the only identifying characteristic present is a recitation of requisite activity (e.g. capable of treating or preventing). There is not even identification of any particular portion of a structure that must be conserved for said activity. Regarding the genus of the claims , the specification describes two species , namely a pol y peptide and siRNA, that fall within the genus claimed (Specification ¶ [ 0035 ]). From the specification, it is clear that Applicant is in possession of species of polypeptide and siRNA inhibitors (Specification ¶ [ 0035 ] , Figs.2A, 2B ). The claims, however , are not limited to those species but also include antibodies, oligonucleotides, and any small molecule ; the specification fails to provide a representative number of species within the recited genus. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics of the genus as a whole, or representative number of species within the genus, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genus. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 In Prometheus , the Court found that "[i]f a law of nature is not patentable, neither is a process reciting a law of nature, unless that process has additional features that provide practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the law of nature itself." Additionally, "conventional or obvious" "[pre]solution activity" is normally not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law." Flook , 437 U. S., at 590; see also Bilski , 561 U. S., ("[T]he prohibition against patenting abstract ideas 'cannot be circumvented by'.., adding 'insignificant post-solution activity'" (quoting Diehr , supra, at 191-192)). The Court also summarized their holding by stating "[t]o put the matter more succinctly, the claims inform a relevant audience about certain laws of nature; any additional steps consist of well understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community; and those steps, when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant beyond the sum of their parts taken separately." Thus, if the claim recites or involves a judicial exception, such as a law of nature/natural principle or natural phenomenon (e.g., the law of gravity, F=ma, sunlight, barometric pressure, etc.), and/or something that appears to be a natural product (e.g., a citrus fruit, uranium metal, nucleic acid, protein, etc.), then the claim only qualifies as eligible subject matter if the claim as a whole recites something significantly different than the judicial exception itself. In the instant case, based upon an analysis with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-20, 25, and 33 are determined to be directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained below in view of controlling legal precedent set forth in 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618) dated December 16, 2014 and 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 FR 50) dated January 07, 2019. Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Claims 1-20, 25, and 33: Yes . The instant claims 1-20, are 25 are directed to an isolated polypeptide, a polynucleotide comprising the isolated polypeptide, and a recombinant vector comprising the polynucleotide , which are compositions of matter. Claim 33 comprises the isolated polypeptide, polynucleotide comprising the isolated polypeptide, or recombinant vector comprising the polynucleotide with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or adjuvant. One embodiment within the broadest reasonable interpretation of C laim 33 is that the carrier is phosphate buffer saline . Since the carrier in this embodiment is also composed of matter, Claim 33 is also directed to a statutory category (e.g. composition of matter) Next, Step 2, is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test) to determine whether the claim is directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas (the judicially recognized exceptions). (In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) the Supreme Court sets forth a two-step test for determining patent eligibility. First, determine if the claims encompass a judicial exception (a natural phenomenon/law of nature/abstract idea) (Step 2A/1) . If so, then ask whether the remaining elements/steps, either in isolation or combination with the other non-patent-ineligible elements, are sufficient to ‘“transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (Step 2A/2) . Put another way, there must be a further “inventive concept” to take the claim into the realm of patent eligibility. Id. at 2355. In the recent Myriad v Ambry case, the CAFC found claims (drawn to methods comprising obtaining tissue samples, analyzing sequences of cDNA and comparing germline sequences of a gene to wild-type sequences) to encompass the abstract mental processes of ‘comparing’ and ‘analyzing’. Recitation of specific techniques (in Myriad claims 7 and 8 further recited hybridization and PCR) were deemed not “enough” to make the claims patent-eligible since the claims contained no otherwise new process. The elements/steps recited in addition to the judicial exception did nothing more than spell out what practitioners already knew). Step 2A/1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea? Claims 1-20: Yes. Claims 1-19 are directed to an isolated polypeptide which comprises or consists of a portion or all of Apolipoprotein (ApoB100), which is a naturally occurring polypeptide in humans that can bind to ALK1 and SR-B1 . Claim 20 is the corresponding polynucleotide to the claimed polypeptide. The isolated polypeptide s have different structural characteristic s from the naturally occurring ApoB100 peptide because they are not bound to a lipoprotein and because some of the peptides recited are fragments of the full ApoB100 peptide sequence ; however , the se peptides are not markedly different from those found in nature because they contain the binding regions necessary to preserve their functionality (i.e. bind to ALK1 or SR-B1) . In other words, the value of these peptides is that they are able to bind to ALK1 or SR-B1, but they do so by the same binding sequence that exists in nature; therefore, although they have been truncated and isolated from lipoprotein, they are not markedly different from the naturally occurring counterpart . This is similar to the holding of Myriad, where an isolated but otherwise unchanged nucleic acid was not eligible because it was not different enough from what exists in nature in order to avoid improperly tying up the future use and study of the naturally occurring gene. The isolated polypeptides of claims 1-19, and thereby the corresponding polynucleotide of claim 20, are different but not markedly different from its natural counterpart. MPEP 2106.04(c): “ If the claim includes a nature-based product that does not exhibit markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, then the claim recites a "product of nature" exception, and requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. ” Claim 25: Yes. Claim 25 recites a recombinant vector comprising the polynucleotide. There is no indication that a generic expression vector would markedly alter the structure or function of the polynucleotide. Claim 33: Yes . Claim 33 is a composition comprising the polypeptide, polynucleotide, or recombinant vector with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or adjuvant. T he broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim is a sufficient amount of the polypeptide, polynucleotide, or recombinant vector to produce a response in a typical patient, which is mixed with a pharmaceutically sufficient amount of a carrier , such as phosphate-buffer saline (PBS) . Thus, one embodiment within the BRI is a mixture of polypeptide (SEQ ID NO: 1) and PBS . Because the polypeptide and PBS do not occur together in nature, there is no naturally occurring counterpart mixture for comparison, and so the claimed mixture is compared to its naturally occurring components, i.e. , polypeptide (SEQ ID NO: 1) , and PBS . T here is no indication that mixing these components changes the structure, function or other properties of the polypeptide or phosphate buffer saline . Thus, for at least one embodiment within the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed mixture as a whole does not display markedly different characteristics compared to the naturally occurring counterparts. Next, prong two of Step 2A requires identifying whether there are additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s) and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. “Integration in to a practical application” requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such as the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Step 2A/2: Do additional elements of the claim integrate the claim into a practical application? Claims 1-20 do not contain additional elements and are not considered under Step 2A/2 or 2B analysis. Claims 25 and 3 3 : No. Neither of the claims contain additional elements that integrate them into a practical application, such as using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A/2: NO) , then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Claims 1-20 do not contain additional elements and are not considered under Step 2A/2 or 2B analysis. Claim 25: No. Using a claim a generic vector to transport a nucleic acid was well-understood, routine & conventional prior to applicant’s invention and at the time of filing the application . W hen recited at such a high level of generality, it does not meaningfully limit the claim. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than each “product of nature” by itself. Claim 33: No. Because the component elements (the peptide and carrier “product of nature” exceptions) do not occur together in nature and are not markedly changed by their combination into a mixture, each is considered as an additional element to the other. This consideration provides an opportunity to explore whether this combination of “products of nature” amounts to significantly more than the products themselves. As discussed above, mixing the peptide with a carrier such as phosphate buffer saline does not markedly change the characteristics of either component, because each component continues to have the same properties in the mixture as it had alone. In addition, using a carrier in a peptide vaccine was well-understood, routine & conventional prior to applicant’s invention and at the time of filing the application, so the mixing of the peptide and carrier, when recited at this high level of generality, does not meaningfully limit the claim. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than each “product of nature” by itself. Thus , for reasons fully explained above, claims 1-20, 25, and 33 do not satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 and are therefore rejected. 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. (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. Claim(s) 34 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schleer et al. US20250154264 (hereafter Schleer ‘264), which has an earliest effective filing date of 01/24/2022 . Claim 34 is drawn to a method of blocking uptake or transcytosis of low-density lipoproteins (LDL), very-low-density-lipoprotein (VLDL), chylomicrons or lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) by contacting an endothelial cell with an inhibitor of SR-B1 and/or ALK1 receptors. Claim 34 is drawn to a method of treating atherosclerosis by administering an inhibitor of SR-B1 or ALK1 receptors Schleer ‘264 teaches a method of treating atherosclerosis by administering an anti-ALK1 antibody (Claim 8 ). Furthermore , it teaches blocking LDL uptake in endothelial cells [0116] . Conclusion No claims allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHELLE C BUCCINI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1352 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jeffrey Stucker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712720911 . 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. /MICHELLE CALLAHAN BUCCINI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1675 /JEFFREY STUCKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1675