DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .2. This action is in response to the amendment filed on 24 July 2026. Applicant's arguments and amendments to the claims have been fully considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. All rejections and objections not reiterated herein are hereby withdrawn. In particular, the previous objection to the claims has been obviated by the amendment to the claims. The previous rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been obviated by the amendment to the claims. The previous rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) – written description has been obviated by the amendment to the claims.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-4, and 9-17 are pending. Claims 16 and 17 are newly added.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, 16 and 17 read on the elected invention and have been examined herein. The claims have been examined herein to the extent that they read on the elected combination of LMR 1-5. The claims encompass the non-elected subject matter of LMRs other than the elected combination of LMRs 1-5. Prior to the allowance of claims, any non-elected subject matter which has not been rejoined with the elected subject matter will be required to be removed from the claims.
Maintained / Modified Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of a law of nature / natural phenomenon, and/or an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons that follow.
Applicant' s attention is directed to MPEP 2106 “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” which discusses the Alice/Mayo two-part test for evaluating subject matter eligibility.
Regarding Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test set forth at MPEP 2106III, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process.
Regarding Step 2A, prong one, the claims recite the judicial exception of a law of nature. The claims recite the correlation between the level of methylation of low-methylated regions (LMRs) and gut inflammation of a chicken or group of chickens. Note that the claims as amended are drawn to a method for “determining that therapeutic or nutritional intervention is needed for a chicken or a group of chickens” and also recite the use of “a random forest predictor that classifies the gut inflammation status of the chicken as positive or negative based on the methylation levels of the panel of LMRs” (see claim 1). As in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus, the recited relationship is a natural phenomenon that exists apart from any human action. See also Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostic, LLC, 2018-1218 (Fed Cir. 2019) which states that “The re-phrasing of the claims does not make them less directed to a natural law.”
The claims also recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea and particularly mental processes.
MPEP 2106.04(a) states that the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas include:
“1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);…
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).”
The claims require using a random forest predictor to “classifying” gut inflammation as positive or negative based on the methylation levels. This classifying step is considered to be an abstract step since it involves the mental steps of reviewing, analyzing and interpreting data. Use of a random forest predictor to classify inflammation based on methylation levels can be accomplished using pen and paper or using a generic computer with a software program. The use of pen and paper or a generic computer or software program to implement an abstract idea does not itself impart patent eligibility.
As stated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation” and that “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.”
Further, the use of a random forest model to compare methylation levels constitutes a judicial exception of a mathematical concept.
See MPEP 2106.04I which states “mathematical formulas are considered to be a judicial exception as they express a scientific truth but have been labelled by the courts as both abstract ideas and laws of nature.”
See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2):
“A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Examples of mathematical calculations recited in a claim include:…
v. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979); and
vi. calculating the difference between local and average data values, In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 903, 214 USPQ 682, 683-84 (CCPA 1982).”
Regarding Step 2A, prong two, having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Herein, the claims do not recite additional steps or elements that integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application of the exception(s). The additionally recited step of measuring the methylation level of LMRs 1-5 in a gut test sample is part of the data gathering process necessary to observe the judicial exception. This step does not practically apply the judicial exception. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(g), steps of gathering data to be used in a claimed process are pre-solution activity and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims as amended also recite a step of “when the gut inflammation status of the chicken is classified as positive, administering a therapeutic or nutritional intervention to the chicken.” In view of the “when” language and because the claims do not require performing a step of classifying the chicken as positive for gut inflammation, this step is conditional and does not occur when the chicken is classified as negative (or isn’t classified as either positive or negative). Also, the claims do not mention treating the group of chickens, which are also encompassed by the claims. Accordingly, the claims include methods which end at step (b) and do not include a step of administering a therapeutic or nutritional intervention to a chicken classified as negative for gut inflammation or administering a therapeutic or nutritional intervention to the group of chickens classified as positive or negative for gut inflammation.
Further, the therapeutic and nutritional intervention are not specific and thereby the administering step is not a practical application of the judicial exception. The claims do not require that any particular therapeutic is administered or any specific “nutritional intervention” is administered which have any particular outcome. Thereby, the administering step does not constitute a practical application of the judicial exception.
Regarding specific treatments, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2):
When determining whether a claim applies or uses a recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the following factors are relevant.
a. The Particularity Or Generality Of The Treatment Or Prophylaxis
The treatment or prophylaxis limitation must be "particular," i.e., specifically identified so that it does not encompass all applications of the judicial exception(s). For example, consider a claim that recites mentally analyzing information to identify if a patient has a genotype associated with poor metabolism of beta blocker medications. This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a). The claim also recites "administering a lower than normal dosage of a beta blocker medication to a patient identified as having the poor metabolizer genotype." This administration step is particular, and it integrates the mental analysis step into a practical application. Conversely, consider a claim that recites the same abstract idea and "administering a suitable medication to a patient." This administration step is not particular, and is instead merely instructions to "apply" the exception in a generic way. Thus, the administration step does not integrate the mental analysis step into a practical application….
b. Whether The Limitation(s) Have More Than A Nominal Or Insignificant Relationship To The Exception(s)
The treatment or prophylaxis limitation must have more than a nominal or insignificant relationship to the exception(s). For example, consider a claim that recites a natural correlation (law of nature) between blood glucose levels over 250 mg/dl and the risk of developing ketoacidosis (a life-threatening medical condition). The claim also recites "treating a patient having a blood glucose level over 250 mg/dl with insulin". Insulin acts to lower blood glucose levels, and administering insulin to a patient will reduce the patient’s blood glucose level, thereby lowering the risk that the patient will develop ketoacidosis. Thus, in the context of this claim, the administration step is significantly related to the recited correlation between high blood glucose levels and the risk of ketoacidosis. Because insulin is also a "particular" treatment, this administration step integrates the law of nature into a practical application. Alternatively, consider a claim that recites the same law of nature and also recites "treating a patient having a blood glucose level over 250 mg/dl with aspirin." Aspirin is not known in the art as a treatment for ketoacidosis or diabetes, although some patients with diabetes may be on aspirin therapy for other medical reasons (e.g., to control pain or inflammation, or to prevent blood clots). In the context of this claim and the recited correlation between high blood glucose levels and the risk of ketoacidosis, administration of aspirin has at best a nominal connection to the law of nature, because aspirin does not treat or prevent ketoacidosis. This step therefore does not apply or use the exception in any meaningful way. Thus, this step of administering aspirin does not integrate the law of nature into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B, the next question is whether the remaining elements/steps – i.e., the non-patent-ineligible elements/steps - either in isolation or combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Herein, the claims as a whole are not considered to recite any additional steps or elements that amount to significantly more than routine and conventional activity and do not add something “significantly more” so as to render the claims patent-eligible. The additionally recited step of measuring methylation level of LMRs was well-known, routine and conventional in the prior art.
This finding is evidenced by the teachings in the specification. For instance, para [0020] (paragraph numbering herein is with respect to the published application) of the specification states: “Measurement of the levels of differential methylation may be done by a variety of ways known to those skilled in the art.” Further, para [0036] states:
“any method known in the art may be used to identify or detect LMRs in the genomic DNA. Well known methods include using programmes such as MethylSeekR.”
See also MPEP 2106.05(d) II which states that:
The courts have recognized the following laboratory techniques as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
ii. Using polymerase chain reaction to amplify and detect DNA, Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1377, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
iii. Detecting DNA or enzymes in a sample, Sequenom, 788 F.3d at 1377-78, 115 USPQ2d at 1157); Cleveland Clinic Foundation 859 F.3d at 1362, 123 USPQ2d at 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017); …
v. Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546; …
vii. Amplifying and sequencing nucleic acid sequences, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 764, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and
viii. Hybridizing a gene probe, Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d at 764, 113 USPQ2d at 1247.
Note that while the claims recite detecting the methylation level of particular LMRs (i.e., LMRs 1-5), the identity of the LMR is part of the judicial exception and not something in addition to the recited judicial exceptions. The claims do not require using a particular non-conventional reagent, such as a particular, non-conventional probe or primer consisting of or comprising a specific nucleotide sequence to detect the methylation level so as to add something ‘significantly more’ to the recited judicial exceptions.
Also, regarding the step of applying a machine learning technique to the methylation levels, this step does not add something significantly more to the recited judicial exceptions. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(a): “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f))”
In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court stated: "[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."
This is similar to the present situation wherein the additional steps and elements are recited at a high degree of generality and are all routine, well understood and conventional in the prior art. The recited steps and elements do not provide the inventive concept necessary to render the claims patent eligible. See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C. 818 F.3d at 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
For the reasons set forth above, when the claims are considered as a whole, the claims are not considered to recite something significantly more than a judicial exception and thereby are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.Response to Remarks:
The response states that the claims have been amended to recite a step in which the classification results are applied to the treatment of the chicken. The response further states:
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) explains that a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application when it is used to effect treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The administration step of amended claim 1 directly applies the methylation-based classification result to a therapeutic or nutritional intervention.
The two articles submitted with this Response further show that, at the time of filing, poultry-health biomarkers were understood to support health monitoring and prevention strategies, and that LMR-based methylation analysis could be used to evaluate broiler health, and the articles further show the practical application of this information.”
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. For the reasons discussed in detail in the above rejection, the administering step does integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because: (i) the administering step is conditional and does not occur “when” the chicken is not classified or is classified as negative for gut inflammation or when the method is one in which the gut test sample is obtained from a group of chicken (as opposed to a single chicken) and the classifying and administering steps are applied to only one chicken, as is encompassed by the claims; and (ii) the administering step is not specific since it encompasses administering any type of therapeutic or any type of nutritional intervention to accomplish any objective and does not actually require improving or ameliorating at least a symptom of gut inflammation. Lastly, providing references discussing the use of poultry-health biomarkers “to support health monitoring and prevention strategies” does not establish that the claims recite any additional non-patent-ineligible steps that integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – New Matter
5. 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 1-4, 9-11, 16 and 17 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. This is a new matter rejection.
The disclosure as originally filed does not provide basis for the amendment to the claims to recite step c) of “when the gut inflammation status of the chicken is classified as positive, administering a therapeutic or nutritional intervention to the chicken.”
In the reply of 24 July 2026, the response states: “support for the amendments to claim 1 may be found, for example, on pages 1-2 ("Background of the Invention") of the as-filed specification, which describe the importance of intestinal health, the adverse consequences of intestinal inflammation, and the need for markers that accurately detect intestinal inflammation, and in original claim 1, which determines whether a subject has a positive or negative gut inflammation status, and in the implicit disclosure of the specification that a therapeutic or nutritional intervention to the chicken would be administered when the gut inflammation status of the chicken is classified as positive (see the first sentence of the second paragraph of MPEP 2163 I.B. and the journal articles submitted herewith and discussed further below).”
However, the cited portions of the specification do not literally or implicitly disclose the concept of treating a chicken determined to be positive for gut inflammation by administering any therapeutic or any nutritional intervention. First, the response does not explain why any of the teachings at pages 1-2 of the specification implicitly provide support for step c). That is, the response does not indicate what information set forth at p. 1-2 of the specification necessarily implied that the disclosed method is one in which a chicken classified as positive for gut inflammation would then be treated with any therapeutic or nutritional intervention. Pages 1-2 of the specification do not disclose administering any type of treatment to a chicken after it is determined that the chicken is positive for gut inflammation. While the background section teaches the importance of a proper functioning gut, this section does not teach that when it is determined that a chicken’s gut is found to be positive for inflammation, the chicken is administered any therapeutic or nutritional intervention. Even if the claims were amended to clarify that the administering step results in the treatment of gut inflammation (as opposed to the current claims which encompass administering any therapeutic or nutritional intervention to accomplish any outcome), there is still no basis in the specification for the concept of ameliorating gut inflammation in the chicken by administering any therapeutic or any nutritional intervention.
Maintained / Modified Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - Enablement
6. Claims 1-4, 9-11, 16 and 17 are 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 methods for classifying gut inflammation of a chicken or group of chickens to be tested wherein the methods comprise performing the method of claim 1 wherein the methylation level of each of LMR1-LMR15 recited in claim 1 are detected and compared to the methylation level of the LMRs of at least one gut tissue sample from a chicken not having gut inflammation and wherein the chromosome start and end positions of LMR 1-LMR 15 are relative to the Gallus gallus genome assembly version 5.0,
does not reasonably provide enablement for methods in wherein only LMR 1-5 of claim 1 are detected as indicative of the classification of gut inflammation. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The following factors have been considered in formulating this rejection (In re Wands, 858F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988): the breadth of the claims, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples of the invention and the quantity of experimentation necessary.
This rejection was previously presented in the Office action of 12 May 2026 and is maintained over the amended claims to the extent that the claims encompass methods which measuring the methylation level of only LMR1-5 (i.e., the elected species) or with respect to the non-elected species a combination of five of any one of LMR1-15 or a combination of five of any one of LRM16-30.
The specification (Table 3) teaches only the 15 LMRs of claim 1 which are used as a combination to classify the presence of gut inflammation in broiler chickens. As discussed above, these LMRs have only been described in terms of their chromosome positions with respect to Gallus gallus reference genome version 5.0.
At p. 8 of the specification and Table 4, LMR16-LMR30 are also disclosed which appear to have been selected based on the maximum methylation differences between the LMRs control and inflamed samples (e.g., para [0082]).
The specification teaches that 13 of LMR1-15 are required for accurate detection of gut inflammation. That is the specification (para [0067] states:
“FIG. 1 : Classification error of an iterative random forest 3-fold cross-validation with 100 LMRs as starting input, applying the command rfcv of the R package RandomForest. The figure shows that the error becomes very small starting at 13 LMRs. At 6 LMRs the predictive power decreases and the error increases significantly.”
Thus, the teachings in the specification indicate that only 5 LMRs, including LMR1-LMR5 of claim 1, is not sufficient to accurately classify cut inflammation.
There is a high level of unpredictability in the art of diagnosing a phenotype, such as gut inflammation of an avian subject, based on methylation status.
As discussed above, the teachings in the specification evidence this level of unpredictability in that the specification teaches that a combination of 6 of LMR1-15 is not sufficient to determine gut inflammation without error (Fig. 2 and para [0068]). The teachings in the specification also establish that the identity of LMRs that are correlated with gut inflammation can only be identified by trial and error experimentation. Note that the specification and Figure 1 show that while 67,651 LMRs were found to be present in the genome of broiler chickens, the combination of 13 of these LMRs “resulted in non-zero classification error” and a combination of 15 of the LMRS is “sufficient for a close-to-zero classification.”
Case law has established that '(t)o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.'" In re Wright 990 F.2d 1557, 1561. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970) it was determined that '(t)he scope of the claims must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of enablement provided by the specification to persons of ordinary skill in the art". The amount of guidance needed to enable the invention is related to the amount of knowledge in the art as well as the predictability in the art. Furthermore, the Court in Genetech Inc. v Novo Nordisk 42 USPQ2d 1001 held that '(I)t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art that must supply the novel aspects of the invention in order to constitute adequate enablement".
In the present application, the claims do not bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of enablement for the reasons set forth above. In view of the unpredictability in the art, and the lack of disclosure in the specification and in the prior art, it would require undue experimentation for one of skill in the art to make and use the invention as broadly claimed.Response to remarks:
The response states:
“By this Amendment, the claims are amended to obviate the rejection. In particular, the claims are amended to narrow the scope of the claims specifically to chickens to match the experimental results described in the specification.”
However, the amendment to the claims to recite chickens in place of avian subjects and to define the LMRs in terms of their chromosome positions with respect to the Gallus gallus genome assembly version 5.0 reference sequence does not address all aspects of the prior rejection. The claims were also rejected because the specification teaches that using less than 13 of LMR 1-15 to classify the gut inflammation status of a chicken is not reliable. The response does not specifically address this aspect of the rejection. The rejection is maintained for the reasons of record and set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLA J MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00 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, Wu-Cheng Winston Shen can be reached on 571-272-0731. 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.
/CARLA J MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights