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. Priority The present Application, filed October 10 2023 claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/414,635 , filed October 10, 2022 . Status of the Claims Claims 1-50 are currently pending. Information Disclosure Statement The three information disclosure statement (IDS s ) submitted on March 8, 2024, March 11, 2025, and March 28, 2025 are acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 15 and 50 are indefinite : Claims 15 and 50 are 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. Claim 15 is indefinite for reciting wherein the joint infection is a non-implant associated bone infection, because it would be unclear that a non-implant associated bone infection is a type of joint infection. It is speculated that claim 15 is intended to recite wherein the joint infection is a non-implant associated bone joint infection, and the claim will be construed accordingly for examination against the prior art. Claim 5 0 is indefinite for reciting, “including those with right-sided infective endocarditis, caused by methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant isolates,” because a person of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably determine the metes and bounds of this limitation. As a first matter, it would be unclear whether the “including” language is in any way limiting or merely states that those with right-sided infective endocarditis are not excluded, which they wouldn’t be in the absence of this recitation. In the latter, case, the “including” language is merely descriptive, and does not limit the claim. This merely descriptive interpretation is applied as a broadest reasonable interpretation. Further, it would be unclear whether “caused by methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant isolates” modifies infection or whether it modifies endocarditis. This matters because, if it modifies endocarditis, it is also part of the “including” clause and is therefore understood as merely descriptive, and not limiting the claim. Finally, it would be unclear whether the recitation of “methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant isolates” is meant to suggest that the patient simultaneously carries both MRSA and MSSA isolates, or whether the recitation is more properly understood as “methicillin-susceptible or methicillin-resistant isolates.” To reiterate, the method applies to patient “including those with right-sided infective endocarditis, caused by methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant isolates,” is understood as merely a statement that such patients are not excluded, and therefore as not meaningfully limiting the claim scope relative to what it would be in the absence of this recitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (d) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 34-35 and 42-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) : Claims 34-35 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 34-35 and 42 are rejected for failure to include all limitations of the base claim from which they depend. Claim 1 recites a method of treating S aureus bacteremia, comprising a specified dosing regimen of ceftobiprole medocaril to a patient. Claims 34-35, depending from claim 1, recite alternative dosing regimens for pediatric patients or patients having renal impairment. However, claim 1 does not allow for alternative dosing regimens in place of the regimen recited in claim 1, but requires the recited regiment. As such, claims 34-35 and 42 , by seemingly replacing the required dosing regimen of claim 1 with an alternative regimen, fail to include all limitations of claim 1 . Claims 43-48 are likewise rejected for depending from claim 42 and thereby carrying this same failure. A note on claim interpretation : Claims 5-7 and 28-31 recite intended results that cannot be given patentable weight in the present circumstances. For example, claim 5 recites the method of claim 1 wherein the treatment achieves microbiological eradication of the infection. “ A whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. ” Minton v. Nat'l Ass'n . of Sec. Dealers , 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . See also MPEP § 2111.04(I), which makes clear that this rule of claim construction is not limited to clauses marked off by the term “whereby,” but is applicable to functionally equivalent clauses having terms such as “wherein” or other functionally equivalent terms. Claims 6-7 are the same in this respect, as are claims 28-31, which recite the method of claim 1, wherein some functional result is avoided, or does not occur. Claims 34-35 and 42 recite attribute-dependent dose schedules in which the regimen applied to an individual patient is dependent on attributes such as age, weight, or renal function. The claim is understood as requiring that a single patient is treated according to the schedule, not that a plurality of patients be treated, covering all alternative regimens in the schedule. For example, it is understood that treating a single adolescent of over 50 kg according to a regiment of 500 mg of ceftobiprole every 8 hours would constitute performance of the method of claim 34, and that the claim does not require treating at least 6 pediatric patient to satisfy all recited combinations of age and weight. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1- 10 , 14-16, 18-19, 22 -23 27-31, 37-39, 41 , and 50 are anticipated by Hamed : Claims 1-10, 14-16, 18-19, 22 -23 27-31,37-39, 41, and 50 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by the non-patent publication, Ceftobiprole versus daptomycin in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a novel protocol for a double-blind, Phase III trial , Future Microbiol . , 15 , pgs. 35-48 (2020) by Hamed et al. (hereinafter, “ Hamed ”) . Claim 1 recites a method of treating a Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (bacteremia) in a patient in need thereof, the method comprising administering ceftobiprole as ceftobiprole medocaril to the patient at a dosage corresponding to of 500 mg of ceftobiprole every 6 hours on days 1 to 8 and 500 mg every 8 hours on days 9 onwards . Hamed teaches a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, two-part study to establish the efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole compared with daptomycin in the treatment of S. aureus bacteremia (SAB) – Abstract. Hamed teaches the study includes selection of about 390 patients (pg. 38, Study design), half of whom (randomized 1:1) receive ceftobiprole treatment with treatment administered for a duration of 21-28 days (pg. 39, Study procedures). Hamed further teaches that the patients receiving ceftobiprole received 500 mg every six hours (q6h) on days 1-8 and then received 500 mg every eight hours (q8h) – [pg. 40, Table 2 ] . Hamed also teaches that ceftobiprole medocaril is a prodrug of the active drug, ceftobiprole (paragraph spanning the bottom of pg. 35 to the top of pg. 36) and that the title of the study is “ A randomized, double-blind, multicenter study to establish the efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole medocaril compared to daptomycin in the treatment of S. aureus bacteremia, including infective endocarditis ” ( emphasis added), thus indicating that ceftobiprole is in fact administered in the form of the prodrug ceftobiprole medocaril . Hamed thus teaches a method of treating S. auraed bacteremia in a patient comprising administering ceftobiprole medocaril to the patient at 500 mg of ceftobiprole every 6 hours for the first 8 days and administering the same amount every 8 hours thereafter. With respect to claim 2, Hamed teaches the ceftobiprole is administered for 21-28 days (pg. 38, Study design). With respect to claim 3, “up to 42 days” is understood to include any number of days less than or equal to 42, and so the 21-28 days of administration of Hamed is “up to 42 days.” With respect to claim 4, the enrolled patients in the study of Hamed have “confirmed or suspected complicated SAB” (Abstract). With respect to claims 5-7 and 28-31 , as noted above, these recite intended results which cannot be given patentable weight. As such, these claims are anticipated for the same reason as is claim 1. With respect to claims 8-10, Hamed teaches that one inclusion criterion is for subjects having definitive native-valve right-sided infective endocarditis (pg. 37, Table 1, item 9). With respect to claims 14-16 and 18-19 Hamed teaches that inclusion criteria include one of several conditions selected from a group that includes septic arthritis, metastatic infection of native tissue, and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (pg. 37, Table 1, item 8). With respect to claim 22, Hamed teaches inclusion criteria optionally include SAB in patients undergoing chronic intermittent hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis (pg. 37, Table 1, item 6 ). With respect to claim 23, Hamed teaches that randomization (random assignment of subjects to ceftobiprole or daptomycin treatment) is stratified by study site, hemodialysis status, and prior antibacterial treatment use (defines as use of any potentially effective systemic antibacterial treatment within 7 days of randomization (pg. 39, Study procedures). Thus, Hamed indicates that some subjects receiving ceftobiprole have previously received potentially effective treatment with a different antibiotic for the infection. With respect to claim 27, Hamed teaches inclusion criteria optionally include persistent SAB (pg. 37, Table 1, item 7). With respect to claims 38-39, Hamed teaches that administration of the ceftobiprole medocaril is via two hour intravenous infusion (pg. 39, Study procedures; and pg. 40, Table 2) . With respect to claim 37, which recites that the ceftobiprole medocaril is administered via injection, according to a broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “injection” is understood to include intravenous infusion . See, for example, the non-patent publication, intravenous infusion definition , thefreedictionary.com , obtained at the url medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ intravenous+infusion , (copyright updated to 2026) which states that, “[a] push intravenous infusion is the direct injection of medication into a vein through an intravenous line, needle, or catheter ;” as well as the non-patent publication, injection definition , thefreedictionary.com , obtained at the url medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/injection , (copyright updated to 2026) which includes the definition of “ the forcing of a liquid into a part, as into the subcutaneous tissues, the vascular tree, or an organ . Because the “injection” of claim 37 encompasses the intravenous infusion of Hamed , claim 37 is likewise anticipated. Claim 41 recites wherein the patient has a condition selected from a group that includes the condition recited in claim 8 and is therefore anticipated for the same reason as is claim 8. Claim 50 recites a method for the treatment of adult patients with S. aureus bacteremia, comprising the method step as recited in claim 1. As noted above, the recitation that the patients include those with right-sided infective endocarditis, caused by methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant isolates is understood as being descriptive, and not limiting the claim (although it is noted that these descriptive elements are present in Hamed , as noted above). As such, claim 50 is substantially the same as claim 1, except that it species the patients must be adult. Hamed is applied to claim 50 as to claim 1, and Hamed further teaches that the enrolled patients include 390 adults (pg. 44, Executive summary). Claim 50 is thus anticipated. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claims 11-13, 17, 20-21 , 24-26 are obvious over Hamed : Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hamed . Claims 11-13 recite the method of claim 1, wherein the patient has a bone infection caused by S. aureus (claim 11), which is not associated with an implant (claim 12) and which is osteomyelitis (claim 13). Hamed is applied to claims 11-13 as to claim 1, above, but does not expressly teach administration of c ef t obiprole medoca ril to patients having a bone infection such as osteomyelitis, at least in the main study described. In fact, Hamed lists osteomyelitis among the exclusion criteria for the study (pg. 37, Table 1, Exclusion criteria). However, Hamed further foresees a Part 2 of the study, to be undertaken upon completion of the described Part 1, in which patients having osteomyelitis will be treated (pg. 44, Interim analysis). As such, it would have been at least obvious to apply the treatment method of Hamed to patients having osteomyelitis, which is a bone infection of claims 11-13. Claim 17 recites the method of claim 1 wherein the patient has an intra-abdominal abscess caused by S. aureus . Hamed is applied to claim 17 as to claim 1, above, and further teaches that an SAB complication that can constitute an inclusion criterion for the study is the presence of visceral soft-tissue abscesses in the patient (pg. 37, Table 1, item 8). The “visceral soft-tissue abscesses” of Hamed have substantial overlap with the “intra-abdominal abscess” of instant claim 17, but they are not identical categories. The present specification states that an intra-abdominal abscess can involve any abdominal organ (pg. 10, lines 1-3), and it can perhaps include other tissues such as the peritoneum. Meanwhile, viscera is generally understood as referring to internal organs of the abdomen or chest, not exclusively intra-abdominal. Nevertheless, due to the substantial overlap of the terms, both encompassing all abdominal viscera, would render it at least obvious to apply the method of Hamed to patients having abscesses in at least some intra-abdominal tissues (i.e. the abdominal viscera). With respect to claims 20 and 21, Hamed does not expressly distinguish study subjects according to whether their infections are of methicillin-susceptible or methicillin resistant S. aureus . Hamed does, however, expressly teach that c ef t obiprole is active against both methicillin-susceptible and methicillin resistant S. aureus . As such, it would have been obvious to perform the method of Hamed on patients having blood infected with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus and to perform the method on patients having blood infected with methicillin resistant S. aureus . Claims 24-26, depending from claim 23, specify the different antibiotic with which the patient has received previous treatment. As noted with respect to claim 23, Hamed teaches that some patients have received previous treatment with an antibiotic, but Hamed does not specify the antibiotic(s). Hamed does, however, teach that vancomycin, daptomycin, and beta-lactam antibiotics are standard-of-care for SAB (pg. 36, Rationale for investigating ceftobiprole in SAB, including IE). It thus would have been obvious to apply the method of Hamed to patients having previous treatment with an antibiotic, specifically when the previous antibiotic was vancomycin, daptomycin, or a β-lactam. Claim s 32-33 are obvious over Hamed and Zhanel : Claim s 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hamed , in view of the non-patent publication, Pharmacodynamic activity of ceftobiprole compared with vancomycin versus methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA) and vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) using an in vitro model , J. Antimicrob . Chemother . , 64 , pgs. 3 64 -3 69 (20 09 ) by Zhanel et al. (hereinafter, “ Zhanel ”). Claims 32 and 34 recite the method of claim1 wherein the S. aureus has a vancomycin MIC of higher than 2 mg/L or higher than 4 mg/L. Hamed is applied to claims 32-33 as to claim 1, but does not expressly teach this feature. It would have been obvious to apply the method of Hamed to patients having an S. aureus blood infection by a strain that is somewhat vancomycin resistant, however, because ceftobiprole was well-known in the art to be effective against strains of S. aureus having appreciable vancomycin resistance. See, for example, Zhanel . Zhanel teaches a study of bacteriostatic and bactericidal activity of ceftobiprole and vancomycin against various strains of S. aureus , including vancomycin0intermediate S. aureus (VISA) and vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA) – Abstract; Background. Zhanel teaches that VISA has vancomycin MIC of 2-4 mg/L while VRSA has vancomycin MIC of 64 mg/L (i.e. minimal effect); but that ceftobiprole is effective against both types, with MICs 2 mg/L and bactericidal effect with ≥3 log10 killing (Abstract; Results). Given the notable effectiveness of ceftobiprole against strains of S. aureus having vancomycin MIC greater than 2 or 4 mg/L, it would have been obvious to apply the method of Hamed against patients harboring an infection by such strains, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the method to such patients. Claim 34 is obvious over Hamed and Rubino : Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hamed , in view of the non-patent publication, Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Ceftobiprole in Pediatric Patients , Ped. J. Infect. Dis. , 40 , pgs. 997 - 1003 (20 21 ) by Rubino et al. (hereinafter, “ Rubino ”). Claim 34 recites the method of claim 1 wherein when the patient is a pediatric patient the dosage of ceftobiprole is according to the recited table. Hamed does not expressly teach the pediatric dosing regimen of claim 34, but this dosing regimen is arguably obvious on its face as a minor modification of the general dosing regimen of Hamed described above. In particular, for adolescents of 50 kg or more and children of 33 kg or more, the dosing is the same as the general dosing from day 9 onwards, and only differs in the first 9 days by virtue of being every 8 hours instead of every 6 hours. Such a minor alteration of known parameters (e.g. concentration or dose frequency) does generally not confer nonobviousness on its own, particularly when, as here, there is no showing of criticality of the difference. Notwithstanding this, beginning pediatric administration of ceftobiprole at q8h, instead of a having a mile q6h loading phase, was known in the art. See, for example, Rubino . Rubino teaches a study of the pharmacokinetics of ceftobiprole in pediatric patients (Abstract), and applies a dosing regimen of 10 mg/kg q8h for adolescents and 15 mg/kg q8h for younger children. It would have been obvious to modify the general dosing regimen of Hamed for pediatric patients, according to the pediatric pharmacokinetic parameters disclosed by Rubino . Claim s 35 and 42 -48 are obvious over Hamed and Torres : Claims 35 and 42-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hamed , in view of the non-patent publication, Pharmacokinetics and Dosing of Ceftobiprole Medocaril for the Treatment of Hospital- and Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Different Patient Populations , Clin. Pharmacokin . , 55 , pgs. 1507 -1 520 (20 16 ) by Torres et al. (hereinafter, “ Torres ”). Claim 35 recites the method of claim 1 wherein when the patient is a patient with renal impairment the dosage of ceftobiprole is according to the recited table. Hamed does not expressly teach the dosing regimen for renally impaired patients of claim 35, which is just a slightly less aggressive version of the dosing regimen of Hamed , but the dosing regimen for renally impaired patients was known in the art. See, for example, Torres . Torres teaches recommended ceftobiprole dose adjustment for patients with moderate or severe renal impairment (Abstract). In particular, Torres teaches the dosing regimen of instant claim 35 (paragraph spanning the bottom of the left column of pg. 1514 to the top of the left column of pg. 1515). It would have been obvious to implement this dosing regimen, for renally impaired patients, in the method of Hamed to account for the higher exposure that is coincident with renal impairment. Claim 42 combines the elements of claims 3, 20 and 21 as alternatives, and 35. As such, claim 42 is obvious for the reasons applied to the anticipation of claim 3 and the obviousness of claims 20-21 and 35, above. Claims 43-48, depending directly or indirectly from claim 42, recite the additional features that are recited in claims 8-9, 12-13, and 15-16, respectively. These claims are therefore obvious for the same reasons applied to the obviousness of claim 42 and to the anticipation of claims 8-9, 12-13, and 15-16, above. Claim s 36 and 40 are obvious over Hamed and Jones : Claims 36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hamed , in view of the non-patent publication, Recent advances in the rational design and optimization of antibacterial agents , MedChemComm , 7 , pgs. 1 694 -1 715 (20 16 ) by Jones et al. (hereinafter, “ Jones ”). Claim 36 recites the method of claim 1 wherein the ceftobiprole is administered as the sodium salt of ceftobiprole medocaril . Hamed is applied to claim 36 as to claim 1, but does not expressly teach that the ceftobiprole medocaril is a sodium salt. It would have been obvious, however, to use the sodium salt, as it was well-known that this is the commonly used and marketed form of ceftobiprole. See, for example, Jones . Jones , a review, teaches that ceftobiprole was temporarily postponed for approval in the Europe and discontinued in Canada due to concerns from U.S. and European regulatory agencies, but was then modified with the medocaril solubilizing group and widely approved and marketed as ceftobiprole medocaril sodium (pg. 1696, right column, first full paragraph). It would have been obvious to use this widely marketed form in the method of Hamed . Claim 40 recites the method of claim 1 wherein 500 mg of ceftobiprole corresponds to 666.6 mg of the prodrug ceftobiprole medocaril . This is effectively a recitation that the ceftobiprole medocaril is the sodium salt of ceftobiprole medocaril , equivalent to claim 36, based on the molecular weights of the species. The molecular weight of ceftobiprole is ~535 g/mol, that of ceftobiprole medocaril free base is ~691 g/mol, and that of ceftobiprole medocaril sodium salt is ~713 g/mol. Thus only if the ceftobiprole medocaril is the sodium salt would 666.6 mg of it correspond, on a molar basis, to 500 mg of active ceftobiprole. As such, claim 40 is obvious for the same reason as is claim 36. Claim 49 is obvious over Hamed and Liversidge : Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hamed , in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009 / 0227554 to Liversidge (hereinafter, “ Liversidge ”). Claim 49 recites a pharmaceutical product comprising a container containing ceftobiprole medocaril and instructions for using the ceftobiprole according to the method of claim 1. Hamed is applied to claim 49 as to claim 1, above, but does not expressly teach such a pharmaceutical product, including instructions for use. It would have been obvious to prepare such a product, or kit, for performing the method of Hamed , because such kits for drug administration, including intravenous infusion, were well-known in the art. See, for example, Liversidge . Liversidge teaches methods of treating bacterial infections (Abstract), including methods utilizing a cephalosporin to treat an S. aureus infection (paragraph [0053 ]). Liversidge teaches that the antibiotic can be administered by infusion (paragraph [0084]) . Liversidge further discloses a kit comprising a container containing a cephalosporin antibiotic in a first compartment and a solvent/buffer in a second compartment, for admixture prior to use (claim 71, and 76). Liversidge also teaches the kit can include instructions for preparing and administering the mixture (claim 75 – see also paragraphs [0174]-[0175]). It would have been obvious to prepare a kit, or pharmaceutical product, as taught Liversidge , containing the components of the method of Hamed , for convenient administration of the treatment of Hamed . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER K SHOWALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, eastern time. 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, Jeffrey S Lundgren can be reached on (571) 272-5541. 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. /ALEXANDER K. SHOWALTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1629 /JEFFREY S LUNDGREN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1629