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. DETAILED ACTION Disposition of Claims Claims 1-18 are pending. Examiner’s Note All paragraph numbers (¶) throughout this office action, unless otherwise noted, are from the US PGPub of this application US20240226265A9, Published 07/11/2024. Applicant is encouraged to utilize the new web-based Automated Interview Request (AIR) tool for submitting interview requests; more information can be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice . Optional Authorization to Initiate Electronic Communications The Applicant’s representative may wish to consider supplying a written authorization in response to this Office action to correspond with the Examiner via electronic mail (e-mail). This authorization is optional on the part of the Applicant’s representative, but it should be noted that the Examiner may not initiate nor respond to communications via electronic mail unless and until Applicant’s representative authorizes such communications in writing within the official record of the patent application. A sample authorization is available at MPEP § 502.03, part II. If Applicant’s representative chooses to provide this authorization, please ensure to include a valid e-mail address along with said authorization. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2023, 02/14/2024, and 08/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Notably, the disclosure statement filed lists a Search Report. The listing of the references cited in a Search Report itself is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, "the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper." Therefore, the references cited in the Search Report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information or any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the IDS, including all "statement" requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a). Note: If copies of the individual references cited on the Search Report are also cited separately on the IDS (and these references have not been lined-through) they have been considered. Claim Objections Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ sensoneuronal ” should be “sensorineural”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b); Second Paragraph 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 6 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. Claim 6 is drawn to t he method of claim 3, wherein the expression vector comprises a promoter, optionally a human cytomegalovirus promoter . From the wording of the claim, it is unclear if the optional human cytomegalovirus promoter is an additional promoter, or is the specific type of promoter that further limits the promoter recited previously in the claim. For at least these reasons, claim 6 is rejected on the grounds of being indefinite. Claim 10 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. Claim 9 is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein said administering comprises intradermal injection . Claim 10 depends upon claim 9, and provides “ wherein said administering further comprises electroporation .” However, from the wording of the claim, it is unclear if this is a concomitant administration (e.g. the composition is administered intradermally via injection and electroporation at the same time) or if a subsequent administration, such as a booster administration hours, days, weeks, or months later, is to be administered via electroporation. Turning to the specification for guidance, at ¶[0056], it appears as though this is a concomitant administration as in ID-EP administration, wherein e lectroporation (EP) involves applying short, controlled electric pulses to the injection site immediately after the intradermal injection (ID) of a DNA vaccine. One suggestion to clarify that this is a concomitant technique is to either incorporate the limitation into instant claim 9, or to reword claim 10 along the lines of the following: “ 10. The method of claim 9, wherein said intradermal injection administration further comprises electroporation immediately following said intradermal injection . ” For at least these reasons, claim 10 is rejected on the grounds of being indefinite. Claim s 14 -15 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. The term “ statistically significant ” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ statistically significant ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the art, “s tatistically significant ” means a result is unlikely to have occurred by random chance alone, suggesting a "real" effect exists rather than mere coincidence , but being a measurable metric, the metes and bounds as to what Applicant considers “statistically significant” must be provided. For instance, statistical significance is often measured by a p-value (for instance p < 0.05, which indicat es a low probability that the observed differences were due to sampling error .) As the art has no baseline accepted p-value for what is, and what is not, “statistically significant”, and Applicant has not provided a baseline for this term in the claim or specification, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasoning. Note that claim 16, which depends upon claim 15, is NOT included in this rejection as it provides a clarification as to what is considered a “statistically significant increase.” For at least these reasons, claim s 14-15 are rejected on the grounds of being indefinite. Claim Interpretation The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 1 is drawn to a method of inducing a protective immune response against Lassa virus (LASV) in a subject in need thereof, said method comprising administering a prophylactically effective amount of a nucleic acid molecule encoding the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 to the subject. Further limitations on the method of claim 1 are wherein the nucleic acid molecule comprises SEQ ID NO: 2 (claim 2); wherein the nucleic acid molecule is an expression vector (claim 3) , wherein the expression vector is a DNA plasmid (claim 4) , wherein the DNA plasmid is pGX9808 (claim 5; NB: SEQ ID NO: 3 is the nucleic acid sequence for pGX9808) , wherein the expression vector comprises a promoter, optionally a human cytomegalovirus promoter (claim 6) , comprising administering a dose of 2 mg of the expression vector (claim 11), comprising administering an initial dose of 2 mg of the expression vector and a second dose of 2 mg of the expression vector (claim 12), comprising administering the second dose 23 to 33 days after the initial dose (claim 13) , wherein the method provides a statistically significant increase in overall cellular response rate in the subject relative to baseline as measured by a Lassa virus glycoprotein precursor (LASV GPC) interferon-y (IFN- y) ELISpot assay six weeks and/or twelve weeks after the initial dose (claim 14) ; wherein the method provides a statistically significant increase in overall cellular response rate in a population of subjects administered the nucleic acid molecule as measured by a Lassa virus glycoprotein precursor (LASV GPC) interferon-y (IFN- y) ELISpot assay relative to a population of subjects not administered the nucleic acid molecule (claim 15), wherein the increase is about 40% to about 70% (claim 16); wherein the method induces: a cellular immune response in about 70% of a population of subjects as measured by a Lassa virus glycoprotein precursor (LASV GPC) interferon-y (IFN- y) ELISpot assay six weeks following administration of the initial dose; a cellular immune response in about 83% of a population of subjects as measured by a Lassa virus glycoprotein precursor (LASV GPC) interferon-y (IFN- y) ELISpot assay twelve weeks following administration of the initial dose; a cellular immune response in about 80% of a population of subjects as measured by a multiplex-based cytokine/chemokine assay for interleukin-2 (IL2), interferon-y (IFN- y), tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-a), IFN- y-induced protein-10 (IP10), and monokine -induced-by-IFN- y (MIG) six weeks following administration of the initial dose; and/or a cellular immune response in about 80% of a population of subjects as measured by a multiplex-based cytokine/chemokine assay for interleukin-2 (IL2), interferon-y (IFN- y), tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-a), IFN- y-induced protein-10 (IP10), and monokine -induced-by-IFN- y (MIG) twelve weeks following administration of the initial dose (claim 17); wherein the method provides no senso ri neural hearing loss in the subject (claim 18) ; wherein the nucleic acid molecule is administered as a vaccine comprising a buffer (claim 7) , wherein the buffer comprises sodium chloride (NaCl) and sodium citrate (Na 3Ct) , optionally wherein the buffer comprises 150 mM sodium chloride and 15 mM sodium citrate at pH7 (claim 8); wherein said administering comprises intradermal injection (claim 9) , and wherein said intradermal injection administration further comprises electroporation immediately following said intradermal injection (claim 10) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Broderick et. al. ( US20140249467A1 ; Pub. 09/04/2014; CITED ART OF RECORD; hereafter “Broderick”) as evidenced by Ake et. al. (Ake JA, et. al . J Infect Dis . 2017 Nov 27;216(9):1080-1090.; hereafter “Ake”.) The Prior Art Broderick teaches a method of inducing a protective immune response against Lassa virus (LASV) in a subject in need thereof (¶[0021]-[0022]). Broderick teaches said method would comprise administering a prophylactically effective amount of a nucleic acid molecule encoding the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 5 to the subject, wherein instant SEQ ID NO:1 and reference SEQ ID NO:5 of Broderick are 100% identical (¶[0021]; instant claim 1 .) Additionally, Broderick teaches codon optimization of the nucleic acid encoding the GPC sequence, wherein instant SEQ ID NO:2 and reference SEQ ID NO:2 of Broderick are 100% identical (¶[0047][0083]; instant claim 2 ). Broderick teaches that the nucleic acid may be within an expression vector ( ¶[0091-0102]; instant claim 3 ), wherein the vector is a DNA plasmid, such as pVax1 (¶[0093][0098][0121]; instant claim 4 ). The instantly claimed pGX9808 plasmid appears to be the PVAX1© vector, wherein said vector comprises a pUC ori , a kanamycin resistance marker ( KanR ), and a human CMV IE1 promoter and bovine growth hormone (BGH) polyA tail flanking a multiple cloning site (¶[0016] of instant specification ). Broderick also teaches the PVAX1® vector for delivery of the LASV GPC ( ¶[0098] of Broderick ; instant claim 6 ). As evidenced by Ake , the pGX0001 vector discussed in the instant specification is the backbone for pGX9808 , and is also the PVAX1© plasmid vector ; therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, since Broderick teaches the delivery of SEQ ID NO: 2 via PVAX1® vector, Broderick also teaches the pGX9808 vector of instant claim 5 . Broderick teaches the immunogenic composition may be a vaccine comprising a buffer and additional adjuvants, such as IL-12, IL-15, IL-28, or RANTES (¶[ 0020][ 0074]; instant claim 7 ). Broderick teaches the immunization may be via intradermal injection (¶[0128][0137]; instant claim 9 ), specifically intradermal electroporation (¶[0149]; reference claims 8-10; instant claim 10 ). Broderick teaches dosages of vaccines at 2-4 mg/mL (¶[0024] [0070][0103][0112] ; instant claim s 11 -12 ) or lower dosages for smaller animals, such as 1 mg for non-human primates (¶[0153]), wherein the dosage schedule is three doses given at 4 week intervals or two doses 8-weeks apart (¶[0153]; instant claim 13 ). In regards to instant c laims 14-18 , the functional recitations of the claims (e.g. cellular response rate in subject relative to baseline, cellular response rate compared to population of non-vaccinated subjects, increase in response of 40-70%, types of immune responses elicited, administration does not elicit s ensorineural hearing loss) are not positive limitations but only requires the ability to so perform. They do not constitute limitations in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison , 69 USPQ 138 (CCPA 1946); In re Swinehart , 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971); and In re Schreiber , 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally. See In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971) (“ [T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong with [defining something by what it does rather than what it is] in drafting patent claims.”). Yet, choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk. As our predecessor court stated in In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d at 213, 169 USPQ at 228: where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on Therefore, the functional features of instant claims 14-18 would be inherent characteristics of the LASV vaccination methods of Broderick since the vaccination methods, steps, and reagents all meet all the structural limitations of the claimed method. For at least these reasons, Broderick teaches the limitations of instant claims 1-7 and 9-18 , and anticipates the invention encompassed by said claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broderick as applied to claim s 1-7 and 9-18 above, and further in view of Inovio Pharmaceuticals ( Inovio Pharmaceuticals. Dose-ranging Study: Safety, Tolerability and Immunogenicity of INO-4500 in Healthy Volunteers in Ghana. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04093076. First Pub. 09/16/2019; hereafter “Inovio”) as evidenced by Koram et. al . ( Koram KA, et. al . Front Immunol . 2025 Oct 24;16:1658549. ; hereafter “ Koram ”.) The Prior Art The teachings of Broderick have been set forth supra . While Broderick teaches the composition may be in a pharmaceutically acceptable buffer for vaccine purposes, Broderick fails to specifically teach the saline sodium citrate (SSC) buffer of instant claim 8. However, the use of such buffers for DNA vaccines, especially DNA vaccines delivering LASV GPC, was known in the art, as taught by Inovio and evidenced by Koram . Inovio teaches a clinical trial to test the safety, tolerability and immunological profile of INO-4500 administered by intradermal (ID) injection followed by electroporation (EP) using CELLECTRA™ 2000 device (Study Description: Brief Summary). Inovio teaches the INO-4500 composition is to vaccinate against Lassa fever (Conditions: Condition). The INO-4500 composition is administered using an intradermal/electroporation administration in two doses at day 0 and week 4 (Arms and Interventions). As evidenced by Koram , this INO-4500 composition was in saline sodium citrate (SSC) buffer (p. 03, ¶ bridging cols. ; Tables 1-3; Fig. 1. ) Given the teachings of Broderick, one of skill in the art would be apprised as to the methods of delivering a DNA plasmid composition to elicit a therapeutic immune response against LASV, wherein said plasmid encoded LASV SEQ ID NO:2. Given the teachings of Inovio as evidenced by Koram , one of skill in the art would be apprised as to the use of SSC buffer for such LASV DNA plasmid vaccines. Therefore, the limitations of instant claim 8 would be obvious to a skilled artisan, given the combined teachings of Broderick and Inovio as evidenced by Koram . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the methods and compositions taught by Broderick in order to generate the LASV DNA plasmid vaccine in SSC buffer . One would have been motivated to do so, given the suggestion by Inovio that they also generated a DNA plasmid LASV vaccine for ID-EP delivery in SSC buffer . There would have been a reasonable expectation of success, given the knowledge that said buffer was used for a LASV DNA plasmid vaccine for ID-EP delivery , as taught by Inovio and evidenced by Koram . Thus , the invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). 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 . Claim s 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,446,114 in view of Broderick, Inovio, and Koram (all supra ) . Both sets of claims are drawn to DNA vaccine s and methods of inducing an immune response through administering said vaccine, wherein said vaccine is comprising a nucleotide coding sequence that encodes the glycoprotein precursor of LASV , optimized for said subject, wherein the coding sequence is SEQ ID NO: 2 (SEQ ID NO: 2 is identical between claim sets.) Both claim the method of administration is done through intradermal administration followed by electroporation. The main difference is in the instant claims, the use of SSC buffer and specific DNA plasmids encoding said LASV sequence is claimed, while in the patented claims, the use of adjuvants in the composition is claimed. However, these differences would be obvious to a skilled artisan, given what was known in the art, as evidenced by the teachings of Broderick and Inovio as evidenced by Koram (detailed supra in the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections.) Broderick teaches the DNA plasmids for delivery of SEQ ID NO:2, and teaches that said vaccine compositions may comprise adjuvants such as IL-12 or RANTES. Inovio as evidenced by Koram teach a LASV DNA plasmid vaccine delivered via ID-EP that comprises SSC buffer. Therefore, the instant claims are not patentably distinct over the ‘114 claims, especially in light of the teachings of Broderick and Inovio as evidenced by Koram . Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL B GILL whose telephone number is (571)272-3129 . The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration t ool. To schedule an interview, a pplicant 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, MICHAEL ALLEN can be reached on 571-270-3497 . 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. /RACHEL B GILL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1671