DETAILED ACTION 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 20, 50, 51, and 66) in the reply filed on 10December2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim s 14, 16, 22-23, 28, 34-35, 38, 41, 46, 52, 55, 70, 76, 86 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10December2025 . Status of the Claims The amendments filed 10July2023 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 3-5, 7, 9-10, 13, 15, 17-19, 21, 24-27, 29-33, 36-37, 39-40, 42-45, 47-49, 53-54, 56-65, 67-69, 71-75, 77-85, 87-89 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 20, 22-23, 28, 34-35, 38, 41, 46, 50-52, 55, 66, 70, 76, 86 are pending . Claims 14, 16, 22-23, 28, 34-35, 38, 41, 46, 52, 55, 70, 76, 86 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 11, 34, 38, 41, 52, 76, 86 are original. Claims 2, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 20, 22-23, 28, 35, 46, 50, 51, 55, 66, 70 are currently amended. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 20, 50, 51, and 66 are examined on the merits herein. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) [US provisional 63335470 filed 27April2022 ] is acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 20, 50, 51, and 66 have an effective filing date of 27April2022 . Deposit For the sake of a clear record, a Deposit Rejection (see the language of claim 2) would have been made but-for the information provided at ¶215 on pages 81-82 of the specification. The statements there appear to be in compliance with 37 CFR §§ 1.801-1.809 . Claim Objections Claim s 1 , 50 are objected to because of the following informalities: please change “identical” to “identity” and please also delete the percentage recitations of “91%” through “99.9” (which are all encompassed by the first recitation of “at least 90%” and, are therefore, redundant to “at least 90%”) . Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2 (part b) and 8 (part c) are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims recite soybean plants and then “progeny” . Because “progeny” is redundant to “soybean plants” (a progeny soybean plant is a soybean plant ), please remove “progeny” from these claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 50 is objected to because of the following informalities: this claim refers to sequence being “codon-optimized” but does not state what the sequence is codon optimized for. Please explain that the sequences are codon-optimized for soybean . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Part (a) says the claimed recombinant DNA molecule “is derived from” a soybean plant/part and part (c) says the claimed recombinant DNA molecule “is formed by” an insertion, both of these quoted phrases being method steps . It is not clear from this language whether claim 2 is a product-by-process claim or not. This matters because it is not clear whether, or to what extent, the method steps limit the claimed subject matter. For example, if a third party obtained a DNA molecule comprising the sequence SEQ ID NO: 9 but the molecule was synthetically generated , does that DNA molecule fall within parts (a) or (c ) of claim 2? Please amend the claim to be directed toward the actual structure and function of the claimed DNA molecule and not the manner in which the DNA molecule was obtained . Furthermore, part (b) says that the claimed DNA molecule “is comprised in a” soybean plant/part. It is not clear from this claim language whether claim 2 is actually directed toward a DNA molecule or it if is directed toward a soybean plant/part comprising the DNA molecule. Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The amendments added 10July2023 appear to contain information that is redundant to what was already recited in the claim (with the exception of sequence/SEQ ID NO: particulars). The repeated (redundant) recitations is demonstrated by the fact that PAT, FT_Tv7, and TDO are abbreviated twice. It also looks like references to certain sequences/SEQ ID NOs: is repeated (such as to SEQ ID NOs: 11 and 98). Taken together, it is not clear what the claimed construct actually contains—please clarify the claim. Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. This claim recites “commodity product” but, based on the specification and art, it is not clear what a “commodity product” means. To be clear, the Office acknowledges ¶174 on page 63 where a broad description of “commodity product” is given including oil. However, in view of how “commodity product” is used in claim 66, oil would not comprise the DNA construct as set forth in claim 50. So, it is not clear what products described at ¶174 on page 63 could actually fall within claim 66 . Please clarify claim 66 to explain what falls within, and outside of, “commodity product” such as by reciting that the “commodity product … comprises protein, flour ….” Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 101 & 112 - Utility 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. 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. Claim s 1 , 2 (parts a-c), and 66 ( part a ) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility. For the sake of a clear record, the issues raised here with respect to Utility mirror those raised below with respect to Written Description except that the claims rejected here (Utility) recite only structures and do not recite a function (claims reciting both a structure and function being rejected below for a lack of Written Description). These claims recite a breadth of sequences (or combinations of sequences ) for which there is neither a well-recognized specific and substantial utility or a disclosed ( i.e., within the specification) specific and substantial utility. In an effort to keep the record clear (including what amendments to what claims are being requested), the claims are considered individually below. RE claims 1 and 2 : because just one of the 5’ junction sequences SEQ ID NO: 1, 3, 5, or 7 or just one of the 3’ junction sequences 2, 4, 6, or 8 would not be sufficient to specifically identify the presence of the claimed event ( a person would need ( i ) both a 5’ junction sequence and a 3’ junction sequence or (ii) either a 5’ or 3’ junction sequence and an herbicide resistance phenotype to specifically identify the Gm_CSM63714 event) ; and absent additional evidence from Applicant , the subject matter of claim 1 does not h ave a specific and substantial utility. Said plainly, there is no clear specific and substantial use for the full scope of the claimed DNA molecules . RE claim 2 (parts a-c): claim 2 refers to claim 1 and, therefore, incorporates the issues discussed above. RE claim 66 (part a): claim 66 refer to claim 1 and, therefore, incorporates the issues discussed above. I n view of the prior art and the specification, as well as other objections and indefiniteness issues raised herein, i t is recommended that claims 1 and 2 be amended so that they are directed toward (or new claims are presented which are directed toward): (1) a pair of first and second nucleotide sequences wherein the first nucleotide sequence is , or is a complement of, SEQ ID NOs: 1, 3, 5, 7 and wherein the second nucleotide sequence is , or is a complement of, SEQ ID NOs: 2, 4, 6, 8 ( because, per FIG. 1 , these sequences are all junction sequences encompassing both genomic DNA and insert DNA ) ; ( 2 ) a DNA construct comprising a nucleotide sequence having at least 90% identity to the full length of , or at least 90% identity to the full length of a complement of, SEQ ID NO: 9 or 10 (noting that, per FIG. 1, SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 10 are sequences corresponding to the entire insert sequence) ; ( 3 ) [RE claim 2] a soybean plant, plant part, or seed comprising one or both of the first and second nucleotide sequence s from (1) and wherein the plant, plant part, or seed also comprises an increased tolerance to dicamba herbicides, glufosinate herbicides, 2,4-D phenoxy auxin herbicides, and/or mesotrione herbicides as compared to a soybean plant, plant part, or seed that does not comprise either of the first and second nucleotide sequences ; (4) [RE claim 2(a), (b), (c)] a soybean plant, plant part, or seed comprising a nucleotide sequence having at least 90% identity to the full length of, or at least 90% identity to the full length of a complement of, SEQ ID NO: 9 or 10; and/ or ( 5 ) [RE claim 2 (a),(b) ] a soybean seed , a representative sample of seed comprising the event having been deposited as ATCC Accession No. PTA-127099, or a soybean plant grown from said seed, or a plant part of said soybean plant , wherein the soybean seed, plant, and plant part comprise soybean event Gm_CSM63714 . As summarized at MPEP § 2103 (I)(A): “the claimed invention as a whole must be useful. The purpose of [the Utility] requirement is to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of ‘real world’ value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or concept, or is simply a starting point for future investigation or research ” ( internal citations omitted ). See MPEP §§ 2164.01(c) and 2107.01-.03, e.g., 2107.02(III)(A) (“ … a specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is a reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope .”). [ This is Part of Form Paragraph 7.05.04 at MPEP § 2107 →] Claim s 1, 2(parts a-c), and 66 (part a) are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well- established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Written Description 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 s 2 (part d, and therefore claim 1 to the extent claim 2(d) refers to claim 1), 6, 8, 11, 12, 20 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. For the sake of a clear record, the issues raised here with respect to Written Description mirror those raised above with respect to Utility except that the claims rejected here (Written Description) recite structures as well as function (claims reciting only structures are rejected above for a lack of Utility). These claims recite a breadth of sequences (or combinations of sequences ) with the stated function of being “diagnostic for” the presence of the Gm_CSM63714 event (or some variation of such language) . Based on the specification and the knowledge within the art, a skilled artisan would not reasonably recognize that Applicant could actually use the full breadth of sequences being claimed to “diagnose” the presence of Gm_CSM63714 event. For at least that reason, these claims are rejected for a lack of Written Description. In an effort to keep the record clear (including what amendments to what claims are being requested), the claims are considered individually below. RE Claim 2(d) (therefore, also claim 1): to the extent “comprises an amplicon diagnostic for” imputes a functional requirement onto the claimed recombinant DNA molecule, claims 1 and 2 are also rejected for a lack of Written Description. Further to what is said above regarding claims 1 and 2, a person would either need (1) the presence of both 5’ and 3’ junction sequences or (2) the presence of either a 5’ or 3’ junction sequence and an herbicide resistance phenotype to determine whether the Gm_CSM63714 event is present. This is because recombination or another deletion (such as a CRISPR/Cas gene editing technique) may remove all or a portion of the insert, but leave either the 5’ or 3’ junction sequence intact. (1) is acknowledged within the specification at, for example, ¶135 on page 47. Therein, Applicant explains that primer pairs which are designed to target “opposite strands of the template DNA” may, when used together in an amplification reaction, produce an amplicon diagnostic for event Gm_CSM63714. The exemplary primer pairs given are SEQ ID NO: 20 (corresponding to a 5’ flanking genomic sequence of the insert) and SEQ ID NO: 15 (which is complementary to a 3’ flanking genomic sequence). Per at least ¶267 on page 108 of the specification, three sequences may be used (three primers including SEQ ID NOs: 15 and 20 such as the combination of SEQ ID NOs: 14, 15, and 20—per FIG. 1, SEQ ID NO: 14 is like SEQ ID NO: 15 in that both are specific for the 3’ flanking genomic sequence): RE Claim 6 parts ( i ) and (ii): similar to what was said above with respect to claims 1 and 2, a person would either need (1) the presence of both 5’ and 3’ junction sequences or (2) the presence of either a 5’ or 3’ junction sequence and an herbicide resistance phenotype to determine whether the Gm _CSM63714 event is present. This is because recombination or another deletion (such as a CRISPR/Cas gene editing technique) may remove all or a portion of the insert, but leave either the 5’ or 3’ junction sequence intact. This means that, looking at claim 6, it would be remedial of this Written Description issue to say that both a 5’ junction sequence (part i ) and a 3’ junction sequence (part ii) are being used to diagnose “the presence of soybean event Gm_CSM63714 in the sample”. RE Claim 6(iv): cannot simply use any fragment of SEQ ID NO: 9 (or a complement thereof) as a “diagnostic for the presence of soybean event Gm_CSM63714” because (1) SEQ ID NO: 9 does not contain junction sequence and is therefore only specific for the full insert, which may be inserted anywhere at any landing pad within a soybean plant/part (FIG. 1) and also (2) a fragment of SEQ ID NO: 9 would encompass, for example, the S. maltophilia DMO subsequence (a frequently used transgene in this field) and use thereof as a “DNA probe”. Using the S. maltophilia DMO subsequence as a DNA probe would not be specific for the claimed event (it would retrieve, for example, the MON 87708 event (US Pat. No. 8504107) which also comprises the S. maltophilia DMO gene within its insert sequence). This specification only describes a small number of structures/sequence which may be used to diagnose “the presence of soybean event Gm_CSM63714” in a sample: ( i ) certain junction sequences (SEQ ID NOs: 1-8 which, when used in pairs comprising a 5’ and a 3’ sequence , are sufficient to identify the presence of this event or when present alone in combination with specific herbicide resistance traits would be sufficient to indicate to a skilled artisan that the event is present), (ii) the primer pair of SEQ ID NOs: 20 and 15 (specific for the 5’ and 3’ flanking sequences of the insert, respectively, per ¶¶135, 267 of the specification), and (iii) full length sequences (SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 10). Please amend claim 6 to be commensurate with ( i ), (ii), and/or (iii). RE Claim 8: it is not clear on the record what exactly SEQ ID NO: 16 is (based on FIG. 1, SEQ ID NO: 16 does not appear to include junction sequence and, in any event, it would only identify the 3’ end of the insert) and it is not clear how , if at all, SEQ ID NO: 16 relates to SEQ ID NOs: 14 or 15. Nonetheless, as is said above for claims 1, 2, and 6; it is clear from the knowledge in the art and the specification that use of just one probe would not be sufficient to diagnose “the presence of soybean event Gm_CSM63714” (← recited in claim 6). Please amend claim 8 in alignment with what is suggested above for claim 6 (to which claim 8 refers) RE Claim 11: this claim asserts that any two fragments of SEQ ID NO: 10 may be used “to produce an amplicon diagnostic for soybean event Gm_CSM63714 in a sample”. Based on FIG. 1, Table 1, and ¶61 of the specification, it is understood that SEQ ID NO: 10 is the full insert sequence (SEQ ID NO: 9) as well as soybean genomic sequence on the 5’ and 3’ ends (corresponding to SEQ ID NO: 11 and 12, respectively). What constitutes a “fragment” sufficient to generate one such amplicon is not provided , therefore, the claim asserts that any fragment of SEQ ID NO: 10 may be used for the stated purpose. As has been discussed hereinabove, a skilled artisan would not recognize any fragment (or subsequence) of SEQ ID NO: 10 as being useful to specifically identify event Gm_CSM63714 at least because, like SEQ ID NO: 9, SEQ ID NO: 10 comprises several popular herbicide resistance transgenes such as the S. maltophilia DMO sequence. Use of the DMO sequence, as an example, would not specifically identify the claimed event because it would also identify other events (such as MON 87708 (US Pat. No. 8501407)) which comprise an S. maltophilia DMO sequence. This specification only describes a small number of structures/sequences which may be used to diagnose “ the presence of soybean event Gm_CSM63714” in a sample: ( i ) certain junction sequences (SEQ ID NOs: 1-8 which, when used in pairs comprising a 5’ and a 3’ sequence , are sufficient to identify the presence of this event or when present alone in combination with specific herbicide resistance traits would be sufficient to indicate to a skilled artisan that the event is present), (ii) the primer pair of SEQ ID NOs: 20 and 15 (specific for the 5’ and 3’ flanking sequences of the insert, respectively, per ¶¶135, 267 of the specification), and (iii) full length sequences (SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 10). Because full length sequences ((iii) SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 10) are generally not utilized in amplification reactions, it is recommended that this claim be amended to specify ( i ) and/or (ii). RE claim 12: Part (a) of claim 12 states that the primer pair SEQ ID NO: 14 and 15 may be used to produce an “amplicon diagnostic for soybean event Gm_CSM 63714 in a sample”, but this is not supported by either the specification or general knowledge within the art. As an initial matter, SEQ ID NOs: 14 and 15 are both specific for the 3’ end of the event insert (see FIG. 1). Also, the specification explains that SEQ ID NO: 20 is used with SEQ ID NO: 15 to generate one such amplicon (not SEQ ID NO: 14) (SEQ ID NO: 20 being specific for the 5’ flanking sequence at the insert) (¶¶135, 267 of the specification). Please amend part (a) of claim 12 so specify that SEQ ID NO: 20 and SEQ ID NO: 15 are used. RE Part (b) of claim 12 states that the amplicon comprises “a nucleotide sequence” found within any one of SEQ ID NOs: 1-10 ( noting that “a nucleotide sequence” reads on any two or more consecutive nucleotides found within SEQ ID NOs: 1-10) and that the amplicon may otherwise comprise any “fragment” that is at least 10 nucleotides in length including nucleotides 1,000-1,001 or 11,196-11,197 of SEQ ID NO: 10 ( i.e., including the two nucleotides that define the 5’ junction of the insert or the two nucleotides that define the 3’ junction of the insert per ¶123 at page 40 as captured below). Because no two consecutive nucleotides found within SEQ ID NOs: 1-10 can produce an amplicon that is “diagnostic for” the claimed event, “comprises a nucleotide sequence selected from” should be changed to “comprises the nucleotide sequence selected from”. Furthermore, analogous to issues raised hereinabove with other recitations of “fragments”, the “fragment” language in part (b) of claim 12 is problematic because it reads on a 10 nucleotide sequence within the insert sequence (such as within SEQ ID NO: 10) that also includes the two nucleotide sequences at either end (1,000-1,001 or 11,196-11,197 of SEQ ID NO: 10 ) . Without more information, it is not believed that only two nucleotides (at either end of a primer) would be sufficient to generate an amplicon that may specifically identify the presence of the Gm_CSM63714 (or any event, for that matter). So, to that end, and without more information please amend the “fragment” clause at the end of part (b) of claim 12 to increase the length from “at least 10 nucleotides” to something like “at least 15 nucleotides” (which is generally regarded in the art as the minimum length for a PCR primer) and please specify that the “1,000-1,001 or 11,196-11,197 of SEQ ID NO: 10” are not at the end of the sequence (those nucleotides should be roughly in the middle, but the Office defers to Applicant as to how such claim language may be drafted to capture that concept). For context, the specification states that SEQ ID NOs: 20 and 15 may be used to generate one such amplicon and SEQ ID NOs: 20 and 15 are 27 and 26 nucleotides long, respectively. For further context, SEQ ID NOs: 1-8 are 30, 30, 60, 60, 100, 100, 1050, and 1050 nucleotides long, respectively. RE claim 20: The language of part (a) is flawed for the same reason as is discussed above with respect to claim 11 (the breadth of DNA primers being claimed would not actually generate an “amplicon diagnostic for soybean event Gm_CSM63714”). Please amend claim 20(a) in a manner that is commensurate to claim 11. The language at part (b) of claim 20 is flawed for the same reasons as claim 6 (the breadth of DNA primers being claimed could not actually be “diagnostic for the presence of soybean event Gm_CSM63714” in a sample). Please amend claim 20(b) in a manner that is commensurate with claim 6. The language of part (c) of claim 20 is directed toward a kit “for detecting the presence of soybean event Gm_CSM63714 in a sample” comprising an antibody that is “specific for at least one protein encoded by GM_CSM63714 .” This specification does not describe even one such antibody. Further to MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(3)(a) citing Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1378, 124 USPQ2d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) : "knowledge of the chemical structure of an antigen [does not give] the required kind of structure-identifying information about the corresponding antibodies" . Please delete part (c) of claim 20. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Rebecca STEPHENS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0070 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Friday 8:30-4:30 . 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 Amjad ABRAHAM can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /REBECCA STEPHENS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1663 /MATTHEW R KEOGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663