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 .
Status of Application
The Amendments and Remarks filed on 04/02/26 are acknowledged.
Claims 3, 8-9, 11-12, 16-18, 20-21, 28, 32-52, and 54-56 were cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 19, 23-25, 27, 30, 53, and 57 were amended.
New claims 58-68 were added.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10, 13-15, 19, 22-27, 29-31, 53, and 57-68 are pending and are included in the prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 04/02/26 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Please see the attached copy of PTO-1449.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Claim Objections
In light of the amendment of claims 24 and 25, the objections to these claims are withdrawn.
In light of the cancellation of claim 33, the objection to this claim is moot.
Rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112(b)
In light of the amendment of claim 27, the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Amended claims and new claims 58-68
Since claim 1 was amended to incorporate the subject matter of claim 3 and claims 58-68 were newly added, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Baraban (US 2018/0028499 A1) in view of Badul (US 2008/0280975 A1).
Since the new grounds of rejection were necessitated by Applicants’ amendment, this action is made FINAL.
New Claim Objections necessitated by Amendment
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claim 64 be found allowable, claim 65 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Improper Dependency
Claim 67 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot refer to two sets of claims to different features. Claim 67 is drawn to a composition but is dependent on claim 57 which is drawn to a method. Furthermore, claim 57 is dependent on claim 1 which is drawn to a composition. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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 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.
Updated Rejections - Necessitated by Amendment
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10, 13-15, 19, 22-27, 29-31, 53, and 57-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraban (US 2018/0028499 A1) in view of Badul (US 2008/0280975 A1).
Instant claim 1 is drawn to an oral composition for treating the symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), comprising about 7.5 mg to about 90 mg of zolmitriptan, or a pharmaceutical acceptable salt thereof, wherein the composition comprises an immediate release (IR) portion and an extended release (ER) portion, and the oral administration of the composition provides a therapeutically effective plasma concentration of zolmitriptan for about 8 hours to about 24 hours.
Baraban teaches a pharmaceutical composition that includes a therapeutically effective amount of a 5HT receptor agonist ([0005]) which includes zolmitriptan ([0031], [0063], [0216], [0227], [0265], claims 1, 11, 33, and 49) for the treatment of ASD ([0101] and [0112]). The pharmaceutical composition may be formulated as a tablet, capsule, pill, cachet, or lozenge for oral administration ([0140]). The 5HT receptor agonist is administered to a subject at an amount of about 0.1 mg to about 1000 mg per kg body weight ([0023]-[0024] and claims 24-25). The dosage of such compounds preferably lies within a range of plasma concentrations that include the ED50 with little or no toxicity ([0177]). The pharmaceutical compositions may additionally include components to provide sustained release and/or comfort ([0160]). The 5-HT receptor agonist may be administered in the dosage at least once a day ([0134]).
Baraban does not expressly teach that the oral administration of the composition provides a therapeutically effective plasma concentration of zolmitriptan for a period of about 8 hours to about 24 hours or an IR portion and an ER portion.
Badul teaches orally administrable dosage forms which are multiparticulate and preferably packaged in capsules or press-molded into tablets ([0087]). The dosage forms include the drug zolmitriptan ([0616]). Oral pharmaceutical dosage forms including tablets, capsules, lozenges, oral gastroretentive tablets and capsules, etc. are taught ([0284]). The dosage form includes an outer capsule which may be an enteric coated capsule or a capsule containing an IR formulation to provide rapid plasma concentrations or a rapid onset of effect or a loading dose and the inner capsule containing an ER formulation ([0104]). Dosage forms in both IR and ER forms are taught ([0232] and [0262]). The immediate release in oral dosage form maintains a mean plasma concentration of the drug within 50% of Cmax for about 1 to about 5.5 hours ([0151]). Controlled release provides a longer duration of action than conventional immediate release formulations of the same drugs and are usually administered about every 6, 8, 12 or 24 hours ([0285]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a pharmaceutical composition formulated as a tablet, capsule, pill, cachet, or lozenge for oral administration comprising zolmitriptan for the treatment of ASD wherein the zolmitriptan is administered to a subject at an amount of about 0.1 mg to about 1000 mg per kg body weight once a day, as taught by Baraban, in view of the oral dosage forms such as tablets and capsules containing zolmitriptan and both IR and ER formulations, as taught by Badul, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Baraban and Badul because both the references are drawn to oral compositions comprising zolmitriptan. It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(A). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing a functional dosage form comprising both IR and ER formulations of zolmitriptan by combining the teachings of Badul with those of Baraban in order to control the release of the active agent and achieve optimal release and pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics.
Regarding instant claims 1, 53, and 58, the limitations of an oral composition would have been obvious over the pharmaceutical composition which may be formulated as a tablet, capsule, pill, cachet, or lozenge for oral administration ([0140]), as taught by Baraban.
Regarding instant claims 1, 53, and 57-58, the limitations of treating the symptoms of ASD would have been obvious over the treatment of ASD ([0101] and [0112]), as taught by Baraban.
Regarding instant claims 1, 2, 58, and 60-62, the limitations of the composition comprising from about 7.5 mg to about 90 mg and about 10 mg to about 30 mg of zolmitriptan, or a pharmaceutical acceptable salt thereof, would have been obvious over the pharmaceutical composition that includes a therapeutically effective amount of a 5HT receptor agonist ([0005]) which includes zolmitriptan ([0031], [0063], [0216], [0227], [0265], claims 1, 11, 33, and 49), wherein the 5HT receptor agonist is administered to a subject at an amount of about 0.1 mg to about 1000 mg per kg body weight ([0023]-[0024] and claims 24-25), as taught by Baraban. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to administer the zolmitriptan dosage based on the target patient and the specific disease symptom, and the recited ranges would have been obvious variants over the range taught by Baraban.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 58, the limitation of an IR portion and an ER portion would have been obvious over the dosage forms including both IR and ER forms ([0104], [0232] and [0262]), as taught by Badul.
Regarding instant claims 1, 13-15, 19, and 53, the limitations of the oral administration of the composition providing a therapeutically effective plasma concentration of zolmitriptan for a period of about 8 hours to about 24 hours and the pharmacokinetic characteristics would have been obvious over the oral administration of the pharmaceutical composition comprising zolmitriptan ([0031], [0063], [0216], [0227], [0265], claims 1, 11, 33, and 49), the dosage of the active agents which preferably lies within a range of plasma concentrations that include the ED50 with little or no toxicity ([0177]), the sustained release ([0160]), and the administration of the 5-HT receptor agonist at least once a day ([0134]), as taught by Baraban.
Regarding instant claim 58, the limitations of the release profile after 15 minutes, after about 4 hours, and after about 8 hours would have been obvious over the immediate release in oral dosage form maintains a mean plasma concentration of the drug within 50% of Cmax for about 1 to about 5.5 hours ([0151]), and controlled release that provides a longer duration of action than conventional immediate release formulations of the same drugs and are usually administered about every 6, 8, 12 or 24 hours ([0285]), as taught by Badul. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the release profile based on the desired IR and ER rate and the recited release parameters would have been obvious variants over the IR and ER taught by the prior art unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding instant claims 4, 5, and 6, the limitations of the IR portion comprising about 20% - 40% by weight of the zolmitriptan, the ER portion comprising about 60%-80% by weight of the zolmitriptan, and the IR portion comprising about 25% of the total zolmitriptan and the ER portion comprising about 75% of the total zolmitriptan, respectively, would have been obvious over the tablets that preferably contain from 5% to 70% of the active compound ([0147]), as taught by Baraban and the dosage forms including both IR and ER forms ([0104], [0232] and [0262]), as taught by Badul. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to distribute the active component in the IR and ER portions based on the desired immediate release and extended release. The recited % ranges would have been obvious over the ranges taught by Baraban unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results. Also, according to MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding instant claims 7 and 10, the limitations of the IR portion comprising about 1 mg to about 10 mg of zolmitriptan and the ER portion comprising about 5 mg to about 25 mg of zolmitriptan, respectively, would have been obvious over the zolmitriptan ([0031], [0063], [0216], [0227], [0265], claims 1, 11, 33, and 49), which is administered to a subject at an amount of about 0.1 mg to about 1000 mg per kg body weight ([0023]-[0024] and claims 24-25), the tablets that preferably contain from 5% to 70% of the active compound ([0147]), as taught by Baraban, and the dosage forms including both IR and ER forms ([0104], [0232] and [0262]), as taught by Badul. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to distribute the active component in the IR and ER portions based on the desired immediate release and extended release. The recited dosage ranges would have been obvious over the ranges taught by Baraban unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results. Also, according to MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding instant claim 22, the limitation of a multiparticulate formulation would have been obvious over the multiparticulate dosage forms ([0087]), as taught by Badul.
Regarding instant claim 23, the limitation of a drug-containing particles coated with an ER coating would have been obvious over the multiparticulate dosage forms ([0087]) and the application of delayed release coatings ([0097]), controlled release coatings ([0262]), as taught by Badul.
Regarding instant claims 24 and 25, the limitations of a gastroretentive tablet and a gastroretentive layer would have been obvious over the oral gastroretentive tablets ([0284]) and the delayed release coatings ([0097]), controlled release coatings ([0262]), as taught by Badul. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a gastroretentive layer as taught by Badul in order to produce a gastroretentive dosage form.
Regarding instant claims 26, 27, 29, and 59, the limitations of the gastroretentive layer comprising a water-swellable polymer would have been obvious over the polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyvinyl alcohol, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, xanthan [gum] ([0024]), polyvinylpyrrolidone, starch, pregelatinized starch, and maltodextrin ([0376]), as taught by Badul. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the preceding components in various portions of the dosage form, including the gastroretentive layer as taught by Badul, in order to produce a gastroretentive dosage form.
Regarding instant claim 30, the limitation of about 35-55% by weight of PEO relative to the total weight of the composition would have been obvious over the PEO and gels or gums such as xanthan [gum] ([0024]) and the total amount of gel forming agent of about 2 to about 80 percent on a dry weight basis of the composition ([0059]), as taught by Badul. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the preceding components as gel forming agents in various amounts based on the range taught by Badul, in order to produce an optimal gastroretentive dosage form.
Regarding instant claim 31, the limitation of the composition which is gastroretained for at least 2 h following oral administration would have been obvious over the oral gastroretentive tablets ([0284]), as taught by Badul since this is a future intended effect after the gastroretentive tablet is orally administered. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare a gastroretentive tablet as taught by Badul and modify the gastroretentive portion as well as the IR and ER portions in order to produce the desired time for gastroretention.
Regarding instant claim 63, the limitation of the weight ratio of zolmitriptan in the IR portion compared to the ER portion of about 25:75 would have been obvious over the dosage form which includes up to 3 capsules within a capsule, i.e., a 25:75 weight ratio ([0104]), as taught by Badul.
Regarding instant claims 64-68, the limitations of the symptoms of ASD would have been obvious over the treatment of ASD ([0101] and [0112]) and the treatment by 5HT receptors including sociability ([0061]), as taught by Baraban. The recited symptoms of ASD do not impact the claimed composition in terms of the constituents, amounts, or arrangement of the composition. Moreover, instant claims 64-68 are drawn to a composition and not to a method of treatment. The treatment of symptoms of ASD is a future intended effect after the claimed composition is administered and does not impact the patentability of the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Pages 8-10, filed 04/02/26) with respect to the following rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims 1-2, 13-15, 19, 33, 35, 53, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraban (US 2018/0028499 A1)
Rejection of claims 3-7, 10, 22-27, and 29-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraban in view of Badul (US 2008/0280975 A1)
Applicant argues that the Office has not established that a skilled artisan would be motivated to modify Baraban to arrive at the claimed IR/ER composition for the treatment of the symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Applicant argues that Baraban discloses epilepsy in ASD only as one condition within a broad enumeration of types of patients with epilepsy, what Baraban teaches are epileptic patients coincidentally also having ASD, not ASD itself as a distinct therapeutic target. Applicant argues that even if the skilled person were to modify a zolmitriptan composition as proposed by the Office, she would have no reasonable expectation that such a composition could effectively treat the symptoms of autism spectrum disorder like increased irritability, decreased sociability, or a combination thereof.
This is not persuasive because there is an overlap in the patient population covered by the instant claims and the prior art, i.e., Baraban ([0101]). Baraban also teaches the treatment by 5HT receptors including sociability ([0061]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to treat the claimed symptoms of ASD over the treatment of ASD ([0101] and [0112]), as taught by Baraban.
Applicant argues that the present specification demonstrates that zolmitriptan directly directs and ameliorates ASD symptoms and since Baraban provides no data showing any effect on ASD symptoms, these results are unexpected in light of Baraban.
This is not persuasive because Baraban teaches administering the same drug (zolmitriptan) in the same dosage range (about 0.1 mg to about 1000 mg per kg body weight) and in the same route of administration (oral tablet, capsule etc.) for the treatment of the same condition (ASD). The treatment or amelioration of the symptoms of ASD would have been expected given the treatment of ASD taught by the prior art.
Applicant argues that Badul provides no motivation to select an IR/ER composition for ASD treatment.
This is not persuasive because Badul is not relied upon for teaching a treatment of ASD. The primary reference, Baraban, teaches this limitation. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of using the combined IR and ER formulations containing zolmitriptan of Badul in the method of treating ASD of Baraban since the same drug is taught by both references. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing a functional dosage form comprising both IR and ER formulations of zolmitriptan by combining the teachings of Badul with those of Baraban in order to control the release of the active agent and achieve optimal release, both IR and ER, and pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics.
Therefore, the rejection of 10/21/25 is maintained.
Updated Rejection – necessitated by Amendment
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10, 13-15, 19, 22-27, 29-31, 33, 35, 53, and 57 are again provisionally rejected and new claims 58-68 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 33-36 and 39-53 of copending Application No. 17/770,535 (“the ‘535 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to an oral composition for treating the symptoms of ASD, wherein the composition comprises from about 7.5 mg to about 90 mg of zolmitriptan, or a pharmaceutical acceptable salt thereof, and the oral administration of the composition provides a therapeutically effective plasma concentration of zolmitriptan for a period of about 8 hours to about 24 hours, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
The differences are that claims 34-36 of the ‘535 Application recite a specific patient population and claims 41- 53 of the ‘535 Application recite results after administration of zolmitriptan whereas instant claims are silent with respect to these limitations.
However, the patient population covered by instant claim 57 includes the patient population outlined in claims of the ‘535 Application. Also, the results after administration recited in claims of the ‘535 Application would have been expected results after the method of instant claim 57 using the composition of instant claims is administered to a subject in need of treatment of ASD symptoms.
New instant claims 64-68 recite the same symptoms, i.e., irritability and sociability, as recited in claim 33 of the ‘535 Application, thereby rendering them obvious.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘535 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Page 11, filed 04/02/26) regarding the provisional rejection of claims 1-7, 10, 13-15, 19, 22-27, 29-31, 33, 35, 53, and 57 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting (NSDP) as being unpatentable over claims 33-53 of copending Application No. 17/770,535 (“the ‘535 Application”) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant requests that this rejection be held in abeyance until the claims are otherwise in condition for allowance. Since allowable subject matter has not yet been identified in the instant application, the provisional NSDP rejection is maintained for the reasons given above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARADHANA SASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 6:30 am to 3:00 pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached on 571-272-6023. 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.
/ARADHANA SASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights