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 with traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 1 – 10, 17, and 19 in the reply filed on 05/01/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching the each of the groups would not prove unduly burdensome. This is not found persuasive because Groups I – V encompass independent or distinct inventions and therefore would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classifications and divergent subject matter and the inventions require a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11 – 16, 18, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37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. Claims 17 and 19 depend on claims 15 and 18 and linking the claims and are also under examination.
Claims 1 – 10, 17, and 19 are under examination.
Priority
This application claims priority to US application 63/383,237, filed on November 10, 2022, as well as US application 63/386,685, filed on December 09, 2022.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 10, 17, and 19, 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.
Claims 1 and 7 recite, inter alia, “engineered in a laboratory” and “engineered amino acid sequences”. Claim 7 recites, inter alia, “amino acid sequences derived from an Ackermannviridae phage”. Claim 9 recites, inter alia, “amino acid sequences of the C-terminal region and the N-terminal region are derived from different phages, and/or wherein the amino acid sequences of the C-terminal region are derived from a non-Ackermannviridae phage.”
It is unclear if the recitation of “derived” was intended to mean a portion of the amino acid sequence of Ackermannviridae or non-Ackermannviridae phage. It is also unclear how—or if—the recitation of “engineered and “engineered in a laboratory” result, e.g., in a phage that is different than an equivalent phage found in nature with an identical amino/nucleic acid sequence. For purposes of compact prosecution and applying prior art, “derived” amino acids from phages was broadly interpreted to mean at least two amino acids found in succession in a bacteriophage. It is noted any interpretation of the claims set forth above does not relieve Applicant of the responsibility of responding to this rejection. If the actual interpretation of the claims is different than that posited by the Examiner, additional rejections and art may be readily applied in a subsequent final Office action.
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.
Claims 1 – 10, 17, and 19 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.
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus. See, e.g., Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010); University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997) at 1406; Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353–54 ('[T]he purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.' (internal quotation marks omitted).").
A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The issue is whether the skilled artisan would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as claimed.
The Federal Circuit has clarified the application of the written description requirement to inventions in the field of biotechnology. See University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568,43 USPQ2d l398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Court stated that a written description of an invention requires a precise definition, one that defines the structural features of the chemical genus that distinguishes it from other chemical structures. A definition by function does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the genus does, rather than what it is. Further, the Court held that to adequately describe a claimed genus, an applicant must describe a representative number of species of the claimed genus, and that one of skill in the art should be able to “visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus.”
Instant claims 1 – 10, 17, and 19 broadly encompass a synthetic phage where the C-terminal region comprises one or more engineered amino acid sequences. Instant claim 6 broadly encompasses recombinant bacteriophage tail-spike protein (TSP) genomic segments having at least 70%, at least 75%, at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90%, at least 95%, or at least 99% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, or 18.
The Specification has failed to sufficiently describe the structural features that must be retained by members of the claimed genus as to establish a structure-function relationship with respect to successful expression of a synthetic bacteriophage comprising at least one recombinant TSP, i.e. producing a bacteriophage capable of infecting and replicating within a cell.
Regarding claims 1 – 10, 17, and 19, the claims encompass an innumerable amount of bacteriophage. The claims only limit a synthetic bacteriophage comprising a mutation in the C-terminal without any identification of the key regions or sequences. The claims and Specification, as written, fail to describe of any substantive structure or structural limitations needed for the function of successfully identifying and infecting target hosts. With specific regards to claim 6, the length of SEQ ID NOs: 6 is 158776 nucleic acids in length. A variant sharing only 70% identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 can have anywhere from 1 to 47632 substitutions, deletions or additions in any combination along any length of the sequence. Thus, just for substitutions with canonical nucleic acids alone, the instant claims encompass an enormous genus (447632) comprising trillions upon trillions of sequences without accounting for the prohibitively large number of sequences encompassed.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 8, the claims limit the synthetic phage of claim 1 by improperly defining the genus based on what it does—not what it is. Claim 2 defines the synthetic phage of claim 1 by the C-terminal regions function of recognizing a target host. Claim 3 defines the synthetic phage of claim 1 by a TSPs function of recognizing a target host that the parent phage is unable to recognize. Claim 8 defines the TSP of a synthetic bacteriophage by the C-terminal regions function of recognizing a target host. However, claims 2, 3, and 8 fail to define the structure required to enable the function of the claim. Likewise, the Specification has failed to sufficiently describe the structural features that must be retained by members of the claimed genus as to establish a structure-function relationship with respect to a synthetic bacteriophage recognizing a target host.
While the instant claims are drawn to a genus that comprises innumerable permutations of sequences, the Specification has only adequately described and successfully reduced to practice only the exact sequences listed in SEQ ID NO: 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 18 disclosed in the sequence listing and in the drawings (Figures 1, 7 – 48). As such, the Specification reasonably demonstrates that Applicant was in possession of variants having only the exact sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 18. However, this is not representative of the extremely large genus of sequences claimed, since there is no evidence of the innumerable sequences contained within a genus of sequences having only 70% identical to SEQ ID NO: 6 that would function to produce synthetic bacteriophage capable of infecting and replicating within a cell.
The Specification fails to disclose which regions, key amino acids, etc. must be must be retained to recognize target hosts. Likewise, the Specification fails to disclose which regions, key amino acids, etc. must be must be retained to constitute a subsequence or portion of the claimed synthetic bacteriophage. For example, any amino acid followed by another amino acid can be considered an amino acid sequence yet it is unclear if including an amino acid sequence of Thr and Ala into the C-terminal region at any position would result in a functional synthetic phage since the Specification fails to describe any substantive structural limitations as to establish a structure-function relationship with respect to recognizing and infecting a target host. The claims improperly define the genus based on what it does—not what it is.
The data generated for the select variants of the bacteriophage segments described in the Specification and Drawings cannot reasonably be extrapolated and applied to support possession of the entire claimed genus of variants thereof because there are no indications that the genus of sequences having at least 70% identity to SEQ ID NO: 6, which includes innumerable permutations, would function to produce bacteriophage capable of infecting and replicating within a cell nor is there a sufficient description of the structure that must be retained for functional characteristics. As in Ariad, merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species. “A patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion.” Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 536 (1966).
At best, the Specification contemplates the use of BLAST to identify functional homologs based on sequence homology. However, this is not sufficient to describe members of the claimed genus because such methods access online databases that are continually being updated as sequencing technology improves. As a result, they are not a static source of information. Thus, one of skill in the art would readily appreciate that relying on a non-patent source that is continuously subject to change as a means to identify members of the claimed genus does not sufficiently meet the written description requirement.
Faber et al (ACS Synth Biol, 10.1021/acssynbio.9b00411, 2021, hereinafter, “Faber”) evidences large scale mutagenesis of bacteriophage and the predicted role of mutations in viral fitness (Abstract). Faber evidences a comprehensive mutagenetic probing of bacteriophage segments including F capsid proteins and G spike proteins (Abstract, Figure 1). Faber evidences that mutations in the bacteriophage genome can result in detrimental alterations in regard to the bacteriophages ability to infect a cell noting a discrepancy between the amount of possible mutants and the amount of viable transformants measured by plaques (Table 2). Faber states that the “differences between fragments in the number of recovered viruses is due to in part to the tolerability of fragments to mutation, as inviable mutants would not form plaques.” The Specification fails to describe any substantive structural limitations as to establish a structure-function relationship with respect to infection of cells let alone the expression of genes within target cells. Thus, one of skill in the art would readily appreciate that single point mutations, truncations, or rearrangements resulting in 70% identity homology alone cannot serve as the basis to describe members of the genus that have the recited function.
In the absence of a representative number of examples, the Specification must at least
describe the structural features that are required for the claimed function, in this case the structure that must be retained to produce synthetic bacteriophage capable of infecting and replicating within a cell as described in claim 1.
However, as discussed above, the Specification fails to describe any substantive structural limitations as to establish a structure-function relationship with respect to genomic segments capable of producing a synthetic bacteriophage capable of infecting and replicating within a cell, let alone the various improved properties required throughout the instant claims. The Specification also fails to describe which regions, domains, etc. of the variant sequences must be retained in order to have a functioning variant of the genomic sequences. Instead, Applicant merely offers a cursory statement that any variant 70% of SEQ ID NO: 6 will work.
Accordingly, the claims as currently written are not adequately described and one of skill in the art would readily appreciate that Applicant was not in possession of the claimed genus at the time of filing.
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.
Claim(s) 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenfield et al (Sci Reports, 2020, 10.1038/s41598-020-72373-0, hereinafter, “Greenfield”), as evidenced by RSCB PDB (Database, 1995).
Greenfield discloses the bacteriophage CBA120 belongs to the Kuttervirus genus in the Ackermannviridae family (Introduction ¶1). Greenfield discloses CBA120 has 4 tail spike proteins (TSPs) that recognize O157:H7 (Abstract). Furthermore, Greenfield discloses the probing of the structure and related function of the TSPs (Abstract). Greenfield also discloses mutations of the TSPs which determine the phage specificity towards its target host (Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Greenfield discloses the mutagenesis of the C-terminus of the TSP of Ackermannviridae (Figure 8, Figure 9, Section: Site-directed mutagenesis). Greenfield also teaches the codon optimization of TSP2 for increased expression as well as an inclusion of a C-terminal 6X-His tag (Section: Cloning, expression and purification).
Regarding claim 8, Greenfield discloses that a mutagenized TSP is capable of recognizing a target host (Figure 8, Figure 9).
[AltContent: textbox (>1TSP_1|Chain A|TAILSPIKE-PROTEIN|Enterobacteria phage P22 (10754)
YDPDQYSIEADKKFKYSVKLSDYPTLQDAASAAVDGLLIDRDYNFYGGETVDFGGKVLTIECKAKFIGDGNLIFTKLGKGSRIAGVFMESTTTPWVIKPWTDDNQWLTDAAAVVATLKQSKTDGYQPTVSDYVKFPGIETLLPPNAKGQNITSTLEIRECIGVEVHRASGLMAGFLFRGCHFCKMVDANNPSGGKDGIITFENLSGDWGKGNYVIGGRTSYGSVSSAQFLRNNGGFERDGGVIGFTSYRAGESGVKTWQGTVGSTTSRNYNLQFRDSVVIYPVWDGFDLGADTDMNPELDRPGDYPITQYPLHQLPLNHLIDNLLVRGALGVGFGMDGKGMYVSNITVEDCAGSGAYLLTHESVFTNIAIIDTNTKDFQANQIYISGACRVNGLRLIGIRSTDGQSLTIDAPNSTVSGITGMVDPSRINVANLAEEGLGNIRANSFGYDSAAIKLRIHKLSKTLDSGALYSHINGGAGSGSAYTQLTAISGSTPDAVSLKVNHKDCRGAEIPFVPDIASDDFIKDSSCFLPYWENNSTSLKALVKKPNGELVRLTLATL)]Regarding claim 9, Greenfield discloses point mutations of the TSP, including the Asp506 506 to Ala resulting in a sequence comprising Thr followed by Ala (Abstract). As evidenced by RCSB PDB, Lederbergvirus P22 has a Thr in the 487 position and Ala in the 488 position of the TSP (Reproduced below). Therefore, Greenfield discloses an amino acid sequence of the C-terminal region that is derived from a non-Ackermannviridae phage satisfies the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Greenfield discloses a nucleic acid sequence encoding the recombinant TSP of claim 7 (Section: Cloning, expression and purification, Site-directed mutagenesis).
Accordingly, the claimed invention was anticipated by Greenfield.
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.
Claims 1 – 5, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Greenfield, as evidenced by RSCB , as applied to claims 7 – 10 above, and in further view of Sorensen et al (Comput Struct Biotechnol J, 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.08.030, 2021, hereinafter, “Sorensen”).
As discussed above, claims 7 – 10 were anticipated by the teachings of Greenfield. The reference discloses a recombinant Ackermannviridae TSP with a mutation in the C-terminus of the TSP. The reference does not teach a phage encoding the mutated TSP.
However, Sorensen teaches TSPs of Ackermannviridae affect host range (Abstract). Sorensen teaches a bioinformatics approach to identifying the exact key regions of CBA120 TSPs in regards to host identification and further teaches the methods of changing TSPs to alter host range (Abstract). Furthermore, Sorensen teaches that the TSP domains can be swapped between different bacteriophages and that the TSP structure is conserved among many different Ackermannviridae (Figure 3, Figure S3, Figure S3).
Regarding claim 1, Sorensen teaches Ackermannviridae bacteriophages that can have mutations in the TSP to alter host-range (Figure 3, Figure S3, Figure S3). Mutations can include domain swapping as well as single amino acid substitutions (Figure 3, Figure S3, Figure S3).
Regarding claim 2, Sorensen teaches Ackermannviridae bacteriophages with mutations in the TSP can recognize target hosts (Introduction ¶4).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Sorensen teaches that swapping portions of the C-terminal of the TSP of Ackermannviridae bacteriophages provides a mechanism for alternate host recognition (Section: 3.3. Conserved receptor binding domains are found in TSP1, TSP3 and TSP4 subtypes suggesting recombination events ¶2).
Regarding claim 5, Sorensen teaches that mutations can be at least one single amino acid substitutions (Figure 3, Figure S3, Figure S3). Therefore, a substitution of a single amino acid that is found in a non-Ackermannviridae phage would satisfy the limitations of the claim. As evidenced by RCSB PDB, Lederbergvirus P22 has an Ala in the 542 position of the TSP (See document).
With regards to claims 17 and 19, a kit is a collection of components. The prior art teaches a synthetic bacteriophage, which is the only component recited in the kit. Therefore, the prior art fulfills the limitations of the kit comprising the synthetic bacteriophage, by teaching the components of the kit.
Greenfield and Sorensen are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they both teach the structure and function of bacteriophage TSPs. Greenfield discloses mutations of the TSPs which determine the phage specificity towards its target host (Abstract). Sorensen teaches the structure and function of bacteriophages and that TSP domains can be swapped between different bacteriophages and that the TSP structure is conserved among many different Ackermannviridae (Figure 3, Figure S3, Figure S3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use modify the TSP of bacteriophages, as taught by Greenfield, and produce functioning phages with modified TSPs, as taught by Sorensen, because doing so would change the host range of the bacteriophage.
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap a portion of the C-terminal domain of an Ackermannviridae, as taught by Sorensen, with an amino acid sequence of the C-terminal domain of a non-Ackermannviridae, as taught by RCSB RDB, because doing so would change the host range of the resulting bacteriophage.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in creating bacteriophages with modified TSPs, including with an amino acid sequence of the C-terminal domain of a non-Ackermannviridae, given that the host range of many Ackermannviridae and non-Ackermanviridae bacteriophages as well as the key sequences of the TSPs involved in determining host range are well known, has been successfully demonstrated, and commonly used in the prior art.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Greenfield and Sorensen as applied to claims 1 – 5,7 – 10, 17, and 19 above, and in further view of Yoon et al (US20170333498A1, hereinafter, “Yoon”).
As discussed above, claims 1 – 5, 7 – 10, 17, and 19 were rendered prima facie obvious by the teachings of Sorensen. The references teach a recombinant Ackermannviridae that can include mutations in the C-terminus of the TSP that alter host range. The references do not teach a synthetic phage with at least 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6.
However, Yoon teaches a Myoviridae bacteriophage, Esc-CHP-1, that can kill enterohemorrhagic E. coli strains (Abstract). Toon also teaches methods for preventing infection as well as treatment of E.coli infections by using the bacteriophage (¶0001). Regarding claim 6, Yoon teaches a bacteriophage with 75.5% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 (Summary shown below).
RESULT 3
US-15-538-538-1
Sequence 1, US/15538538
Publication No. US20170333498A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: iNtRON Biotechnology, Co. Ltd.
TITLE OF INVENTION: Novel enterohemorrhage Escherichia coli bacteriophage Esc-CHP-1
TITLE OF INVENTION: and its use for preventing proliferation of enterohemorrhage
TITLE OF INVENTION: Escherichia coli
FILE REFERENCE: KP090373
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/538,538
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2017-06-21
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 1
SEQ ID NO 1
LENGTH: 157392
TYPE: DNA
ORGANISM: Bacteriophage Esc-CHP-1
Query Match 75.5%; Score 119918; Length 157392;
Best Local Similarity 90.4%;
Matches 132139; Conservative 0; Mismatches 7398; Indels 6652; Gaps 113;
Greenfield, Sorensen, and Yoon are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they both teach the structure and function of bacteriophage. Greenfield discloses mutations of the TSPs which determine the phage specificity towards its target host (Abstract). Sorensen teaches the structure and function of bacteriophages and that TSP domains can be swapped between different bacteriophages and that the TSP structure is conserved among many different Ackermannviridae (Figure 3, Figure S3, Figure S3). Yoon teaches a sequence with 75.5% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 6 (see above).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use modify the TSP of bacteriophages, as taught by Greenfield and Sorensen, in the bacteriophage taught by Yoon, because doing so would change the host range of the bacteriophage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in creating bacteriophages with modified TSPs given that the host range of many bacteriophages as well as the key sequences involved in host range are well known, has been successfully demonstrated, and commonly used in the prior art.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
NO CLAIMS ARE ALLOWED
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Danyal H Alam whose telephone number is (571)272-1102. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am - 5pm.
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, Thomas J. Visone can be reached at 571-270-0684. 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.
/DANYAL HASSAN ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1672
/THOMAS J. VISONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1672
Prosecution Insights