DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-7, 9-18 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-15, 17-18 and cancellation of claim 8 as submitted in a communication filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/7/2025.
Claims 1-7, 9-17 are at issue and are being examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/3/2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to due to the recitation of “..composition comprising from 0.00005 to 5 wt% alginate lyase enzyme by weight of the composition, 0.00005 to 5 wt% hexosaminidase enzyme by weight of the composition, and from 1 to 60 wt% of an anionic surfactant”. To enhance clarity and to be consistent with commonly used claim language, the term should be amended to recite “…composition that comprises (i) from 0.0005 to 5 wt% of an alginate lyase by weight of the composition, (ii) from 0.0005 to 5 wt% of an hexosaminidase by weight of the composition, and (iii) from 1 to 60 wt% of an anionic surfactant by weight of the composition, wherein….”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2, 4, 6 are objected to due to the recitation of “claim 1 wherein..”. To enhance clarity and to be consistent with commonly used claim language, a comma should be introduced so that the term recites “claim 1, wherein..”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to due to the recitation of “..composition according to claim 1, further comprises one or more of an amylase,…and a xanthanase”. To be grammatically correct, the term should be amended to recite “..composition according to claim 1, wherein said composition further comprises one or more of an amylase,…and a xanthanase”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or Second Paragraph (pre-AIA )
Claims 1-7, 9-17 remain 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (claims 2-7 and 9-17 dependent thereon) is indefinite in the recitation of “..composition comprising from 0.00005 to 5 wt% alginate lyase enzyme by weight of the composition, 0.00005 to 5 wt% hexosaminidase enzyme by weight of the composition, and from 1 to 60 wt% of an anionic surfactant, wherein the alginate lyase enzyme comprises from 98% to 100% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1” for the following reasons.
The protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 has 288 amino acids. Therefore, there is no protein that can have 98% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1 because a protein that has 98% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1 would be required to have 282.24 (282.24 = 0.98x288) amino acid matches or 5.76 mismatches (5.76=0.02x288). Amino acid matches and mismatches have to be integers. If the intended limitation is an alginate lyase enzyme that has at least 98% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, the claim should be amended accordingly. Correction is required.
Claim 6 is indefinite in the recitation of “wherein the alginate lyase enzyme comprises from 99% to 100% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1” for the following reasons. The protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 has 288 amino acids. Therefore, there is no protein that can have 99% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1 because a protein that has 99% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1 would be required to have 285.12 (285.12 = 0.99x288) amino acid matches or 2.88 mismatches (2.88=0.01x288). Amino acid matches and mismatches have to be integers. If the intended limitation is an alginate lyase enzyme that has at least 99% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, the claim should be amended accordingly. Correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 are indefinite in the recitation of “wherein the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to active alginate lyase enzyme protein is …” for the following reasons. It appears from claim 1 that the term “alginate lyase enzyme” refers to an enzymatically active protein that has lyase activity. Therefore, it is unclear if the term “active alginate lyase enzyme protein” refers to the “alginate lyase enzyme” of claim 1, or if the term “alginate lyase enzyme” should be interpreted as encompassing a protein that may not have alginate lyase activity. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the claims read “wherein the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to the alginate lyase enzyme protein is …” Correction is required.
Claim 11 is indefinite in the recitation of “the laundry detergent composition according to claim 1” for the following reasons. First, there is no mention of a “laundry” detergent composition in claim 1. Second, there is no limitation recited with regard to the composition of claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear as to how claim 11 further limits claim 1. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that claim 11 is a duplicate of claim 1. Correction is required.
When amending the claims, applicant is advised to carefully review all examined claims and make the necessary changes to ensure proper antecedent basis and dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) or First Paragraph (pre-AIA )
Claims 1-6 and 9-17 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This rejection is necessitated by the introduction of new matter.
As set forth in MPEP 2163 (I)(B), new or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (an adequate description of a genus may not support claims to a subgenus or species within the genus). Claim 1 and dependent claims 6, 9-17 as amended are directed to a detergent composition that comprises an alginate lyase enzyme that comprises from 98%-100% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, or from 99%-100% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1. While the Examiner has been able to locate support for an alginate lyase enzyme that has at least 98% or at least 99% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, the Examiner is unable to locate adequate support in the specification for an alginate lyase enzyme that has from 98% to 100% or 99% to 100% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1. Thus there is no indication that a composition as required by the claims was within the scope of the invention as conceived by Applicant at the time of the invention. Accordingly, Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the response to this Office Action.
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 were 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 and enablement requirements. 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In view of Applicant’s amendment of claims 1 and 6 which now require an alginate lyase enzyme that comprises 98% or 99% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, these rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smets et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,468,955 published 10/22/2002; cited in the IDS).
In view of the amendment of claims 1 and 6 which now require an alginate lyase enzyme that comprises 98% or 99% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, and the fact that Smets et al. do not teach such alginate lyase in their composition, this rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
Claims 2-7 remain rejected and claims 1, 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smets et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,468,955 published 10/22/2002; cited in the IDS) in view of Huang et al. (J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 40:113-122, 2013; cited in the IDS) as evidenced by Huang et al. (GenBank accession No. AEB69783 5/28/2013; hereinafter Huang 1). This rejection as it relates to claims 1, 9-17 is necessitated by amendment.
Smets et al. teach a detergent composition that comprises several enzymes (column 3, lines 44-48) including alginate lyases (alginase II, EC 4.2.2.11; column 7, lines 2-3), one or more hexosaminidases (column 14, lines 66-67- column 15, lines 1-21), amylases (column 9, lines 44-62), mannanases (column 6, line 65), anionic and nonionic surfactants (column 20, lines 44-54), including the anionic surfactant alkyl benzene sulfonate (column 26, lines 8-9), wherein the surfactant, which is selected from anionic and/or nonionic, is present in the composition at levels from 0.1% to 60% by weight, 1% to 35% by weight, or 1% to 30% by weight (column 20, lines 50-54). Smets et al. teach that the alginate lyase (saccharide gum degrading enzyme) can be present at a level from 0.0001% to 2% by weight of the composition, 0.0005% to 0.1% by weight of the composition, or 0.0006% to 0.015% by weight of the composition (column 7, lines 16-20). Smets et al. teach that the hexosaminidase can be present at a level of 0.001% to 1% by weight of the composition. (column 15, lines 1-3). Smets et al. teach that the laundry detergent composition can comprise 1%-40%, or 3%-20% by weight of the anionic surfactant and 0.2%-15%, or 1% to 10% of anionic surfactants. Therefore, Smets et al teach a composition having a weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to the alginate enzyme of, for example, 600:1 (60% anionic surfactant and 0.1% alginate lyase) and 2000:1 (20% anionic surfactant and 0.01% alginate lyase). Also, Smets et al. teach a composition where the ratio of anionic to nonionic surfactant is, for example, 1:1 (1% anionic and 1% nonionic), 20:1 (20% anionic and 1% nonionic), or 30:1 (30% anionic and 1% nonionic). Smets et al. do not teach the alginate lyase of SEQ ID NO: 1.
Huang et al. teach an alginate lyase from Flavobacterium sp20 which has substrate specificity for poly-α-L-guluronate and has high enzymatic capability for saccharifying alginate (Abstract; page 114, left column first full paragraph, EC 4.2.2.11; page 117, left column, first full paragraph; page 119, left column, Figure 3). As evidenced by Huang 1, the alginate lyase from Flavobacterium sp20 of Huang et al. comprises SEQ ID NO: 1. See alignment below.
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 as interpreted are directed in part to a detergent composition that comprises
(i) from 0.0005 to 5 wt% of an alginate lyase by weight of the composition, (ii) from 0.0005 to 5 wt% of an hexosaminidase by weight of the composition, and (iii) from 1 to 60 wt% of an anionic surfactant by weight of the composition, wherein the alginate lyase comprises SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the anionic surfactant can comprise alkyl benzene sulfonate, and wherein the composition can further comprise an amylase and/or a mannanase, wherein the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to the alginate enzyme is at least 500:1 or at least 1000:1, wherein the composition can also comprise 1% to 30% by weight of the composition of a nonionic surfactant, wherein the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant can be from 30:1 to 1:2, from 20:1 to 2:3 or 1:1. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or Second Paragraph (pre-AIA ), for claim interpretation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the alginate lyase of Huang et al. in the detergent compositions of Smets et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to use the alginate lyase of Huang et al. because that enzyme has the exact same enzymatic activity as the alginate lyase of the detergent compositions of Smets et al. (e.g., EC 4.2.2.11). As such, the use of the protein of Huang et al. is merely a replacement with a functional equivalent to obtain predictable results. The teachings of Smets et al. disclose all the required elements in the composition of claim 1 with the exception of the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1. One of the skill in the art could have replaced the alginate lyase of Smets et al. with the polypeptide of Huang et al. by known methods and obtain predictable results in view of the fact that the alginate lyase of Huang et al. has the same enzymatic activity, i.e., alginate lyase, as that of the alginate lyase in the compositions of Smets et al. See MPEP 2143 (B). One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at using the alginate lyase of Huang et al. in the detergent compositions of Smets et al. because the protein of Huang et al. has the exact same enzymatic activity as that of the enzyme in the laundry composition of Smets et al. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
RESULT 1
G9CHX6_9FLAO
ID G9CHX6_9FLAO Unreviewed; 288 AA.
AC G9CHX6;
DT 22-FEB-2012, integrated into UniProtKB/TrEMBL.
DT 22-FEB-2012, sequence version 1.
DT 05-FEB-2025, entry version 27.
DE SubName: Full=Alginate lyase {ECO:0000313|EMBL:AEB69783.1};
GN Name=alg2A {ECO:0000313|EMBL:AEB69783.1};
OS Flavobacterium sp. S20.
OC Bacteria; Bacteroidota; Flavobacteriia; Flavobacteriales;
OC Flavobacteriaceae; Flavobacterium.
OX NCBI_TaxID=1000442 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:AEB69783.1};
RN [1] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:AEB69783.1}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE.
RC STRAIN=S20 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:AEB69783.1};
RA Huang L.S., Zhou J.G., Cao H.L., Lv H., Li S.G., Zhao X.M., Du Y.G.;
RL Submitted (FEB-2011) to the EMBL/GenBank/DDBJ databases.
RN [2] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:AEB69783.1}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE.
RC STRAIN=S20 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:AEB69783.1};
RX PubMed=23111633; DOI=10.1007/s10295-012-1210-1;
RA Huang L., Zhou J., Li X., Peng Q., Lu H., Du Y.;
RT "Characterization of a new alginate lyase from newly isolated
RT Flavobacterium sp. S20.";
RL J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 40:113-122(2013).
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC Copyrighted by the UniProt Consortium, see https://www.uniprot.org/terms
CC Distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR EMBL; JF412659; AEB69783.1; -; Genomic_DNA.
DR AlphaFoldDB; G9CHX6; -.
DR SMR; G9CHX6; -.
DR BRENDA; 4.2.2.11; 2302.
DR BRENDA; 4.2.2.3; 16042.
DR GO; GO:0004553; F:hydrolase activity, hydrolyzing O-glycosyl compounds; IEA:UniProtKB-ARBA.
DR GO; GO:0016829; F:lyase activity; IEA:UniProtKB-KW.
DR GO; GO:0005975; P:carbohydrate metabolic process; IEA:UniProtKB-ARBA.
DR Gene3D; 2.60.120.200; -; 1.
DR InterPro; IPR014895; Alginate_lyase_2.
DR InterPro; IPR013320; ConA-like_dom_sf.
DR Pfam; PF08787; Alginate_lyase2; 1.
DR SUPFAM; SSF49899; Concanavalin A-like lectins/glucanases; 1.
PE 4: Predicted;
KW Lyase {ECO:0000313|EMBL:AEB69783.1}; Signal {ECO:0000256|SAM:SignalP}.
FT SIGNAL 1..22
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|SAM:SignalP"
FT CHAIN 23..288
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|SAM:SignalP"
FT /id="PRO_5005349989"
FT DOMAIN 34..288
FT /note="Alginate lyase 2"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000259|Pfam:PF08787"
SQ SEQUENCE 288 AA; 32915 MW; A9E9BAAD6AFEE153 CRC64;
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1520; Length 288;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 288; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MSIQFSKILLLTVLATATISNAQDKKSKSKTAKIDWSHWTVTVPEENPDKPGKPYSLGYP 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MSIQFSKILLLTVLATATISNAQDKKSKSKTAKIDWSHWTVTVPEENPDKPGKPYSLGYP 60
Qy 61 EILNYAEDKIASKYMYDDPKDKSVVFYAFPSGVTTANTHYSRSELRETMETGSNKVNWTF 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 EILNYAEDKIASKYMYDDPKDKSVVFYAFPSGVTTANTHYSRSELRETMETGSNKVNWTF 120
Qy 121 AKGGKMRGTYAIDDISKEPDGKYSRVIIAQIHGVLTDEQRDLIGQKDNNAPPILKVYWDK 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 AKGGKMRGTYAIDDISKEPDGKYSRVIIAQIHGVLTDEQRDLIGQKDNNAPPILKVYWDK 180
Qy 181 GKIRVKTKVLKDLNAPYKEMLLEHAWGDDEGRNFKEKIDLNTRFTLEVKVSDGRMEVILN 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 GKIRVKTKVLKDLNAPYKEMLLEHAWGDDEGRNFKEKIDLNTRFTLEVKVSDGRMEVILN 240
Qy 241 DTESLVYDDIHMKKWGIFENYFKAGNYFQSKTPGTFAKVKIYSLQVTH 288
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 DTESLVYDDIHMKKWGIFENYFKAGNYFQSKTPGTFAKVKIYSLQVTH 288
With regard to the previous rejection of claims 2-7 over the teachings of Smets et al, Huang et al. and Huang 1, Applicant states that the Examiner asserts that minor changes in structure may result in changes affecting function. Therefore, according to Applicant, the Examiner may not rely on an assertion that minor changes affect function and then not accept that same premise when presenting the 35 SUC 103 rejection. Applicant states that if small changes in the SEQ ID NO: ID affects function, then it may not be presumed that the alginate lyases of Smets may be simply substituted with the alginate lyase of Huang and achieve the same successful result.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered not deemed persuasive to overcome the rejection of claims 2-7 or avoid the rejection of amended claims 1, 9-17. The Examiner has previously stated that minor changes in structure may result in changes in function when discussing the issue that not all structural variants of the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1 are expected to have the same alginate lyase activity of the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1. However, this argument is completely irrelevant to the instant obviousness rejection because the Examiner has not argued that any structural variant of the protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 can be used in the composition of Smets and expect that such variant would have alginate lyase activity. Instead, the Examiner has clearly indicated that because the composition of Smets et al. requires an alginate lyase, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to use the protein of Huang et al, which is an alginate lyase as disclosed by Huang et al., as the alginate lyase of the composition of Smets et al. That would be a simple replacement of one functional equivalent to obtain a predictable result. The protein of Huang et al. would work as an alginate lyase in the composition of Smets et al. because Huang et al. specifically teach that their protein is an alginate lyase, which is the enzyme required in the composition of Smets et al. This is not the case where it is unknown if the protein of Huang et al. would work as an alginate lyase. Therefore, for the reasons of record and those set forth above, the combined teachings of Smets et al., Huang et al. and Huang 1 render the claimed invention obvious.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-7, 9-17 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over (i) claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/301,513, and (ii) claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/297,302.
Claims 1-7, 9-17 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over (i) claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/301,463, (ii) claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/301,487, (iii) claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/739,532, (iv) claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/932,669, and (v) claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/932,665.
These are provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Applicant states that upon indication of allowable subject matter but for the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer if necessary.
In view of the fact that no terminal disclaimer has been filed and no arguments have been providing traversing the Examiner’s position, these rejections are maintained for the reasons of record.
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Conclusion
No claim is in condition for allowance.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Applicant is advised that any Internet email communication by the Examiner has to be authorized by Applicant in written form. See MPEP § 502.03 (II). Without a written authorization by Applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Sample written authorization language can be found in MPEP § 502.03 (II). An Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications form (SB/439) can be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/ forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, which can be electronically filed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DELIA M RAMIREZ, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert B. Mondesi, can be reached at (408) 918-7584. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/DELIA M RAMIREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
DR
December 31, 2025