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 .
Claim Status
1. Claims 1-5, 15, 19, 21, 23-25, 44, and 46-48 are pending and under examination on the merits.
Claims 6-14, 16-18, 20, 22, 26-43, and 45 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 24, 2025 has been received by the Office and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments – Objections to the Specification
3. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed July 25, 2025 have overcome the objections of record.
Response to Arguments – Claim Objections
4. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed July 25, 2025 have overcome the objections of record. However, Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds for objections.
Claims 9 and 38 have been cancelled by Applicant’s amendments filed July 25, 2025; therefore, any objections to claims 9 and 38 have been rendered moot.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1-5, 15, 19, and 21 are objected to for the following reasons:
Claim 1 contains typographical errors; “acyl activating-enzymatic activity” should be amended to “acyl-activating enzymatic activity”. The hyphen should be placed between the two words it modifies.
Dependent claims are included. Appropriate correction is required.
This new objection is necessitated by Applicant’s amendments filed July 25, 2025.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
6. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed July 25, 2025 have overcome the rejections of record.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
7. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed July 25, 2025 have overcome the rejections of record.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed July 25, 2025 have been fully considered but are not sufficient to overcome the rejections of record.
Regarding the rejection of the claims as being directed to a product of nature without significantly more, Applicant has amended the claims to recite a complementary DNA (cDNA) sequence comprising a sequence having at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, or 9 and encoding a functional protein with acyl-activating activity. However, this is not sufficient to distinguish the claimed DNA molecule from naturally-occurring H. umbraculigerum nucleic acid sequences. SEQ ID NO:6 shares at least 99% sequence identity with the nucleic acid sequence of the H. umbraculigerum CoAT6 mRNA, which encodes an acyl-CoA synthetase (i.e., an acyl-activating enzyme; GenBank Accession: OQ673107.1. H. umbraculigerum CoAT6 mRNA, complete cds. 2023 (U)). In the current case, the genomic sequence encoding the H. umbraculigerum CoAT6 mRNA is considered to lack introns absent evidence to the contrary. Applicants in their response have not indicated that the naturally-occurring genes corresponding to the instant claimed cDNAs comprise introns. See MPEP 2106.04(c).
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 37 have been cancelled by Applicant’s amendments filed July 25, 2025; therefore, any rejections to these claims are rendered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 4, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a product of nature without significantly more. Claim 1 recites an isolated DNA molecule comprising a nucleic acid sequence having at least 95% identity to SEQ ID NOs:6, 2-4, and 9. The specification discloses that SEQ ID NOs:6, 2-4, and 9 correspond to genes encoding acyl-activating enzymes (AEEs) obtained from Helichrysum umbraculigerum[0203] (see pp. 47-48, “RNA sequencing and genome annotation of H. umbraculigerum”; and pp. 49-50, Example 2). SEQ ID NO:6 in particular shares at least 99% sequence identity with the coding sequence for an H. umbraculigerum CoAT6 mRNA, which encodes an acyl-CoA synthetase (i.e., an acyl-activating enzyme; GenBank Accession: OQ673107.1. H. umbraculigerum CoAT6 mRNA, complete cds. 2023 (U)). The specification does not indicate any modification of these sequences to distinguish them from the naturally-occurring genes of H. umbraculigerum; absent evidence to the contrary, the claimed sequences are not markedly different from the naturally-occurring H. umbraculigerum CoAT6 genomic sequence. Therefore, the claimed invention is directed to a naturally-occurring nucleic acid or fragment thereof, which whether isolated or not, is not patent-eligible pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., --U.S.--(June 13, 2013). Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to subject matter that is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04.
Though claim 4 adds a further limitation in requiring the recited DNA be artificial, claim 4 does not require this “artificial” DNA molecule to be structurally or functionally distinct from the naturally-occurring DNA molecules of SEQ ID NOs:6, 2-4, and 9. Accordingly, claim 4 is directed a DNA molecule that is not markedly different from a naturally-occurring H. umbraculigerum nucleic acid sequences. Therefore, claim 4 is directed to subject matter that is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 23, Applicant discloses that “acceptable carriers” include starch, cellulose, and their derivatives[0158]. Because H. umbraculigerum naturally produces both starch and the DNA molecule of claim 1, the composition of claim 23 is naturally produced in H. umbraculigerum. Accordingly, claim 23 is directed to subject matter that is not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Response to Arguments – Enablement Rejections
11. Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 4, 15, 19, 21, 23-25, 44, and 46-48 under the Enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed July 25, 2025 have been fully considered but are not sufficient to overcome all of the rejections of record.
Though Applicant has narrowed the scope of the claims to sequences having 95% identity to SEQ ID NOs:6, 2-4, and 9, Applicant still has not provided guidance with regard to how to identify which regions of SEQ ID NOs:6, 2-4, and 9 are sufficient and/or required to encode AAEs sufficiently functional to produce acyl CoAs. Though Applicant is correct in acknowledging the Office’s previous position that SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 are enabled by the Specification, sequences having only 95% identity to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 are not predictably functional and are not enabled. As stated in the previous Office Action, protein chemistry is unpredictable and even a single amino acid change can alter the function of a protein. In the present case, wherein the claimed sequences encompass nucleic acid sequence substitutions, insertions, and deletions of at least 72 nucleotides, proteins encoded by such sequence variants are not predictably functional. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to identify functional variants beyond SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 without extensive and undue experimentation.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 4, 15, 19, 21, 23-25, 44, and 46-48 under the Enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained.
Claims 6-7 and 37-38 have been cancelled by Applicant’s amendments filed July 25, 2025; therefore, any rejections against these claims are rendered moot.
Response to Arguments – Written Description Rejections
12. Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 15, 19, 21, 23-25, 44, and 46-48 under the Written Description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed July 25, 2025 have been fully considered but are not sufficient to overcome all of the rejections of record.
Though Applicant has narrowed the scope of the claims to sequences having 95% identity to SEQ ID NOs:6, 2-4, and 9, Applicant still has not provided guidance with regard to how to identify which regions of SEQ ID NOs:6, 2-4, and 9, within the scope of sequences having 95% identity to SEQ ID NOs:6, 2-4, and 9, are sufficient and/or required to encode AAEs sufficiently functional to produce acyl CoAs. While it is appreciated that SEQ ID NOs:2 and 4/9 encode butyryl CoA synthetases, SEQ ID NO:3 encodes an acetyl CoA synthetase, and SEQ ID NO:6 encodes an acyl CoA synthetase with broader specificity than those encoded by SEQ ID NOs:2-4 and 9, these sequences do not share a high degree of sequence identity and Applicant does not indicate which residues are required or essential for conferring the recited activities and substrate specificities to each of the encoded proteins. Thus, it is unclear which sequences are sufficient to confer the desired activities or any specific activity. Given the low degree of sequence identity shared among SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 and the unpredictable nature of protein chemistry, it is unclear which of the undisclosed sequences encompassed by those having at least 95% identity to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 would be sufficient to produce functional transcript or protein. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 15, 19, 21, 23-25, 44, and 46-48 under the Written Description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained.
Claims 6-7 and 37-38 have been cancelled by Applicant’s amendments filed July 25, 2025; therefore, any rejections against these claims are rendered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
13. 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.
Enablement
14. Claims 1, 4, 5, 15, 19, 21, 23-25, 44, and 46-48 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 SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9, does not reasonably provide enablement for sequences that have only 95% identity to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to produce the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
When determining whether a claimed invention complies with the enablement requirement, factors to consider include: “(1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.” Id.
Regarding claims 1 and 24, the recitation of a nucleic acid sequence having at least 89% sequence homology to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 and/or any combination thereof encompasses any and all nucleic acid sequences comprising deletions, substitutions, and insertions in the original/reference sequence of SEQ ID NOs: 2-4, 6, and 9 as long as the resulting sequence retains 89% sequence identity with SEQ ID NOs: 2-4, 6, and 9 and/or any combination thereof. Applicant discloses that SEQ ID NOs: 2-4, 6, and 9 range from 1440 nucleotides long to 2181 nucleotides long (Sequence Listing). Accordingly, the encompassed deletions range from truncations spanning at least 72 nucleotides (SEQ ID NO:3) to as many as 109 nucleotides (SEQ ID NO:4/9).
Applicant provides no guidance with regard to how to identify which regions of SEQ ID NOs: 2-4, 6, and 9, within the scope of sequences having 95% identity to said sequences, are sufficient and/or required to encode AAEs sufficiently functional to produce acyl CoAs.
The specification indicates that the invention provides acyl-activating enzymes (AEEs) and methods of using the same for producing an acyl coenzyme A (CoA)[002]. Applicant discloses that 11 AAEs were identified and cloned from H. umbraculigerum and 6 of the 11 AAEs were recombinantly expressed in and purified from E. coli prior to the analysis of their enzymatic activity[0203], [0208], [0209]. The drawings (Fig. 6) and specification (pp. 49-50, Example 2) indicate only that the full-length of SEQ ID NOs:2-4 and 6 encode functional enzymes capable of producing various CoA substrates in vitro[0209]. Applicant also discloses the proteins encoded by SEQ ID NOs:2-4 and 6 demonstrate distinct substrate specificities and produce distinct reaction products[0209]; thus, the AAEs encoded by SEQ ID NOs:2-4 and 6 encode functionally distinct enzymes. However, the specification does not disclose any region critical or essential for encoding said AAE activities among any of SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9.
Additionally, although SEQ ID NOs:4 and 9 are identical, SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9, as a whole, do not share any significant amount of sequence identity and Applicant does not describe any regions shared among these distinct sequences that are sufficient for encoding the required enzyme activity. Likewise, the proteins encoded therein, as a whole, do not share any significant amount of sequence identity and Applicant does not describe any regions shared among these distinct sequences that are sufficient for carrying out the required enzyme activity. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to predict which sequences comprising only 95% identity to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 comprise nucleic acid sequences sufficient to encode functional AAEs.
Applicant provides no guidance as to how operable embodiments that form functional transcripts or proteins can be readily identified without resorting to random trial and error. Applicant provides no working examples of sequences having only 95% sequence identity with SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 encoding functional enzymes and provides no guidance as to which nucleic acids or regions of SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 must be conserved/retained in the claimed DNA molecule to encode a sufficiently functional AAE protein. As such, it is difficult to predict which modifications to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 would abolish or inhibit the ability to encode functional protein. Though one of ordinary skill in the art could readily isolate, modify, and/or express any of SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9, one of ordinary skill in the art could not identify, absent teaching from the prior art or Applicant’s disclosure, which regions of SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 are essential or sufficient to encode a functional AAE protein with any reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the plant biotechnology arts would not be able to predict which sequences, besides those provided by Applicant, are required or sufficient to produce the instant invention without undue experimentation.
The art teaches that protein chemistry is one of the most unpredictable areas of biotechnology. For example, substitution of Tyr-38 with Phe or Trp did not abolish protein activity while replacement of Tyr-38 with other amino acids severely reduced or abolished protein activity (Lazar et al., Molecular and Cellular Biology, 1989; 9(2):860-864 (U); Abstract; p. 860, “Detection and biological activity of yeast-secreted proteins of mutant TGF-a.”). Additionally, Nonaka (Human Molecular Genetics, 2009; 18(18):3353-3364 (V)) teaches that deletion of the N-terminus of TDP-43 results in the formation of abnormal protein inclusions (Abstract). Together, these examples teach that even a single amino acid change can unpredictably alter the function of polypeptide variants. Applicant provides no evidence that amino acid sequences encoded by transcripts having 95% identity to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 would form sufficiently functional peptides. Thus, mutated and modified nucleic acid sequences are not predictably functional, and so are not enabled.
In making this determination, the Office has weighed each of the Wands factors. The breadth of the claims is to an isolated DNA molecule (claim 1) and a method of using said molecule (claim 24). The nature of the invention comprises acyl CoA synthetases. The level of skill in the plant biotechnology art is high. The state of the prior art does not teach SEQ ID NOs:1-11 as comprising nucleic acid sequences encoding functional AAEs. The state of the prior art does not teach SEQ ID NOs:12-22 as forming functional AAEs. Applicant discloses no working examples of sequences having only 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9. Applicant discloses working examples of sequences comprising the full lengths of SEQ ID NOs:2-4 and 6 (and 9) only. Given these difficulties, notwithstanding the relatively high level of ordinary skill of those in the art, the amount of experimentation would likely be extensive and undue.
Claim 25 requires that the protein encoded by the recited nucleic acid sequences be characterized by acyl-activating enzyme activity. However, neither the specification nor claim 25 teach how to identify which of the encompassed nucleic acid sequences encode proteins characterized by acyl-activating enzyme activity. Thus, claim 25 does not sufficiently address the deficiency regarding nucleic acid sequences having 95% sequence identity with SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, or 9. Accordingly, claim 25 is not enabled.
Because claims 4, 15, 19, 21, 23, 44, and 46-48 do not address the deficiencies regarding nucleic acid sequences having only 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9, claims 4, 15, 19, 21, 23, 44, and 46-48 are also not enabled.
Written Description
15. Claims 1, 4-5, 15, 19, 21, 23-25, 44, and 46-48 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.
Applicant’s disclosure is as set forth above.
As stated above, claims 1 and 24 encompass any nucleic acid sequences comprising deletions, substitutions, and insertions in the original/reference sequence of SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 as long as the resulting sequence encodes a functional protein with acyl-activating activity and retains 95% sequence identity with SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, or 9, which includes truncations spanning from 72 nucleotides (SEQ ID NO:3) to 109 nucleotides (SEQ ID NO:4/9).
As stated above, sequences having only 95% identity to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, or 9 are not predictably functional. Applicant has not disclosed a sufficient number of nucleic acid sequences having 95% identity to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, or 9 to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to predictably determine which undisclosed sequences having only 95% identity to the disclosed sequences would be sufficient to produce functional transcript or protein.
Applicant does not disclose functional sequences having only 95% identity to the disclosed SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, or 9. While the claims are drawn to any nucleic acid sequences having at least 95% identity to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, or 9, the specification only describes functional sequences as comprising the full-lengths of SEQ ID NOs:2-4 and 6, and the proteins encoded therein, in their entirety. Thus, the specification does not describe species over the full scope of the claimed nucleic acid sequences.
As stated above, Applicant discloses functional transcripts as comprising the full-lengths of SEQ ID NOs:2-4 and 6 only (Fig. 6; pp. 49-50, Example 2) and Applicant’s working examples comprise only the full-length proteins encoded by SEQ ID NOs:2-4 and 6. Furthermore, SEQ ID NOs:2-4 and 6, as a whole, do not share any significant amount of sequence identity and Applicant does not describe any regions shared among these sequences that are sufficient for encoding the required enzyme activity.
Neither the specification or the state of the art teaches truncated versions of SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 as encoding or forming functional proteins. The state of the art at the time of filing teaches Cannabis sativa CsAAE1 as having 68% sequence homology with HuAAE4 encoded by SEQ ID NO:4 (Stout et al., The Plant Journal. 2012; 71(3):353-365 (previously cited), as evidenced by GenBank: JN717233.1 (NCBI. 2012 (previously cited)). The prior art does not disclose which sequences shared between SEQ ID NO:4 and CsAAE1 are essential for the activity of the enzymes encoded therein. Furthermore, CsAAE1 and HuAAE4 form AAEs with distinct substrate specificities and reaction products. Stout discloses that CsAAE1 functions as a hexanoyl-CoA synthetase (Abstract). In contrast, Applicant discloses HuAAE4 functions as a butyryl-CoA synthetase and produces negligible amounts of hexanoyl-CoA (Fig. 6; pp. 49-50, Example 2). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would not be able to predict which nucleotides shared between SEQ ID NO:4 and CsAAE1 are essential for the activity of the enzymes encoded therein; nor would one of ordinary skill be able to predict which amino acid sequences shared between HuAAE4 and CsAAE1 are essential for the distinct activities of the two enzymes.
SEQ ID NOs:2-4 and 6 do not comprise sequences sharing any significant amount of identity; in particular SEQ ID NOs: 2-4 and 6 do not represent a genus of nucleic acid sequences sharing 95% sequence identity. Furthermore, the AAEs encoded by these sequences are disclosed to have distinct substrate specificities and/or to produce the distinct products. While one of ordinary skill in the art can express, extract, and utilize virtually any protein from any appropriate expression system, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot predict which portions of SEQ ID NOs: 2-4, 6, and 9 are dispensable to the activity of the full-length sequences. While one of ordinary skill in the art can produce any and all nucleic acid and amino acid sequences within the recited 95% scopes, one skilled in the art cannot predict which of said sequences would encode or retain the required AAE activity.
MPEP § 2163 states that 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, 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. A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. See, e.g., AbbVie Deutschland GMBH v. Janssen Biotech, 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, when there is substantial variation within genera, as here in which the recitations of nucleic acid sequences having 95% sequence identity with SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 wherein said sequences encode distinct proteins with distinct enzymatic activities and reaction products, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genera. One of skill in this art cannot envision the structure of any other sequences with the required function other than the few species provided by Applicant. Therefore, since only a few species are provided to represent these genera, the claims encompassing the same clearly fail the written description requirement. Accordingly, there is lack of adequate written description to inform a skilled artisan that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant has not provided guidance as to how to identify which regions of SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9 are required for the recited acyl-activating enzyme activity. Thus, claim 25 does not sufficiently address the deficiency regarding nucleic acid sequences having 95% sequence identity with SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9. Accordingly, claim 25 also lacks adequate written description.
Because claims 4-5, 15, 19, 21, 23, 44, and 46-48 do not address the deficiencies regarding nucleic acid sequences having 89% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:2-4, 6, and 9, claims 4-5, 15, 19, 21, 23, 44, and 46-48 also lack adequate written description.
Response to Arguments - Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. Claim 37 has been cancelled by Applicant’s amendments filed July 25, 2025; therefore, any rejections to this claim are rendered moot.
Conclusion
17. No claim is allowed.
18. 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.
Examiner’s Contact Information
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEQUANTARIUS JAVON SPEED whose telephone number is (703)756-4779. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Amjad Abraham can be reached on (571)-270-7058. 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.
/DEQUANTARIUS JAVON SPEED/Junior Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663