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 Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt and entry of the communication filed on May 10, 2024 . Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Scope of Enablement) 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling to show the potent TCDS+ response in mice , that targets multiple epitopes, including the B8, A 8 , A3, K3, A47 and A42 epitopes in mice on an H2b background (See [0113]) , does not reasonably provide enablement for using a method for inducing any type of immune response to any antigen in any subject . The base claim 1 is directed to a method for inducing an immune response to an antigen in a subject comprising administering to the subject an effective amount of a recombinant vaccinia virus in which the extracellular virion protein Fl3 has been replaced with MC021, a molluscum contagiosum virus homolog ofF13, wherein the recombinant vaccinia virus comprises a nucleic acid encoding an immunogenic epitope of the antigen. Here the claim is directed to a generic immune response such as T cell and B cell responses, a genetic epitope of antigen and a generic subject. The instant specification discloses that a potent TCDS+ response, that targets multiple epitopes, including the B8, AS, A3, K3, A47 and A42 epitopes in mice on an H2b background, is also induced by VACV WR 8 days after infection (FIG. 8, Panel I). A similar T cell response is observed after immunization with vF13L-HA, but immunization with vllF13L induced a much-reduced response to all the determinants examined and was undetectable above background to theA47 andA42 epitopes (FIG. 8, Panel I) (See [0113] and Fig. 8 I below ) , where the immunization is for mice. Based on the Fig. 8 and the disclosure, the specification does not provide evidence to support a method to induc e any other type of immune response , like B cell responses , to any antigen in any subject , thus it does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims . To be enabling, the specification of the patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wriqht , 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Explaining what is meant by "undue experimentation," the Federal Circuit has stated: The test is not merely quantitative, since a considerable amount of experimentation is permissible, if it is merely routine, or if the specification in question provides a reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed to enable the determination of how to practice a desired embodiment of the claimed invention. PPG v. Guardian, 75 F.3d 1558, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1996).1 The factors that may be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation are set forth by In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (CAFC 1988) at 1404 where the court set forth the eight factors to consider when assessing if a disclosure would have required undue experimentation. Citing Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546 ( BdApls 1986) at 547 the court recited eight factors: 1) the nature of the invention, 2) the state of the prior art, 3) the breadth of the claims, 4) the amount of guidance in the specification, 5) the presence or absence of working examples, 6) the relative skill of those in the art, 7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and 8) and the quantity of experimentation necessary . Id. While it is not essential that every factor be examined in detail, those factors deemed most relevant should be considered. M.P.E.P. §2164.03 [R-2] states: [I]n applications directed to inventions in arts where the results are unpredictable, the disclosure of a single species usually does not provide an adequate basis to support generic claims. In re Soil, 97 F.2d 623,624, 38 USPQ 189, 191 (CCPA 1938). In cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, more may be required. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833,839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). See also In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Vaeck , 947 F.2d 488,496, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1991). A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the specification does not provide sufficient guidance to allow one skilled in the art to practice the claimed invention on the full scope with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation. In the absence of such guidance and evidence of working examples, the specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure commensurate in scope with the claim Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Enablement) 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 7 -14 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claims 7 -14 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Enablement is considered in view of the Wands factors (MPEP 2164.01(a)) (1) the nature of the invention, ( 2) the state of the prior art, 3) the breadth of the claims, ( 4) the amount of guidance in the specification, ( 5) the presence or absence of working examples, ( 6) the relative skill of those in the art, ( 7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and 8) and the quantity of experimentation necessary. A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claims 7 -14 are directed to a method for inducing a protective immune response to a target in a subject comprising administering to the subject a recombinant vaccinia virus with F13 is replaced by the MC021 and encoding the immunogen. The instant specification teaches that t he term "antigen" refers to a substance or molecule capable of eliciting an immune response and generating specific antibodies (humoral response) or cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (cell-mediated response) against it (See [0032]), t he term "immunogen" refers to a molecule having the ability to be recognized by immunological receptors such as T cell receptor (TCR) or B cell receptor (BCR or antibody) (See [0033]) and t he term "immunogenic" refers to a reaction triggered by the presence of an epitope of an antigen or immunogen. The term "epitope" refers to an antigenic determinant that is sufficient to elicit an immune response (See [0034]). However, the specification only shows that the e xpression of MC021-HA r esults in EV with i ncreased q uantities of g lycoprotein (See [0095]) and a challenge experiment with VACV WR, Δ F13L or vMC021L-HA at “ t o assess the functionality of the correlates of protective immunity, susceptible Balb /c mice were immunized with VACV WR, Δ F13L or vMC021L-HA and challenged with the virulent mouse poxvirus ectromelia (ECTV) 35 days later … mice immunized with either VACV WR or vMC021L-HA all survived the challenge, indicating the induction of functional protective immunity by vMC021L-HA ” (See [0114]), where there is no evidence for the construct comprising a immunogenic antigen as claimed . Thus, the instant specification does not provide evidence to support a method for inducing a protective immune response to a target in a subject as claimed . Accordingly, when all the aforementioned factors are considered in total, it would require undue experimentation for one skilled in the art to practice the full scope of claimed invention as defined by instant claims. Therefore, claims 7-14 were rejected under 35 USC § 112 (Enablement). 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verardi et al. ( Hum Vaccin Immunother . 2012 Jul;8(7):961-70 ) in view of Bryk P. (Thesis-Ph.D., University of Rochester , 2018. First presented to the public: 12/31/2019). The base claim 1 is directed to a method for inducing an immune response to an antigen in a subject, comprising administering to the subject an effective amount of a recombinant vaccinia virus in which the extracellular virion protein Fl3 has been replaced with MC021, a molluscum contagiosum virus homolog ofF13, wherein the recombinant vaccinia virus comprises a nucleic acid encoding an immunogenic epitope of the antigen. The base claim 7 is directed to a method for inducing a protective immune response to a target in a subject, comprising administering to the subject an effective amount of a recombinant vaccinia virus in which the extracellular virion protein Fl3 has been replaced with MC021, a molluscum contagiosum virus homolog of F13, wherein the recombinant vaccinia virus comprises a nucleic acid encoding an immunogen from the target. The base claim 15 is directed to a pharmaceutical composition comprising (a) a recombinant vaccinia virus in which the extracellular virion protein F 13 has been replaced with MC021, a molluscum contagiosum virus homolog of Fl3; and (b) pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, wherein the pharmaceutical composition is formulated for or percutaneous inoculation, subcutaneous injection or intramuscular injection. Verardi et al. teaches that a large number of antigens from animal pathogens have been expressed in VACV ( vaccinia virus ) , and the majority elicit protective immune responses (examples shown in Table 2) (See page 963, right column, paragraph 3 and table 2 below ), and the ability of VACV to induce potent immune responses to tumor-associated antigens (TAAs) expressed in its genome has been employed for the development of immunotherapies for cancer (Table 4) (See page 964 and Table 4 below ). Accordingly, Verardi et al. teaches a method to use VACV to express immunogenetic antigens for vaccine development and cancer treatment. In addition, Verardi et al . teaches the VACV-based vaccines have shown to be protective using animal models (See page 963, Table 1 and right column) and Systemic administration of these oncolytic VACV vectors (e.g., intravenously) targets both tumors and metastases, and current clinical trials show that VACV vectors can be an effective oncolytic cancer therapy (Table 5) (See page 967, left column). Here these descriptions indicates that the protective immune response is tested by administering to the subject an effective amount of pharmaceutical composition including the recombinant vaccinia virus with encoding the immunogenetic antigens. Furthermore, Verardi et al. also teaches that highly attenuated VACV strain has been extensively tested in humans and has sparked considerable interest because it has been demonstrated to be extremely safe (See page 963, left column). In addition, the base claim 15 requires a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier , Verardi et al. teaches that Vaccina virus is used for human vaccine like GeoVax pGA2/JS7 DNA and MVA/HIV62 (MVA) boost , where the composition includes the adjuvant that can be a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier as claimed (See Table 3, page 965). Here the description also teaches the claim 14 for the administration need a n adjuvant. Thus, Verardi et al. teach es a method for developing a recombinant VAVC encoding a n immunogenetic antigen for inducing immune responses in vivo, and teaches the importance to develop the attenuated vaccina virus . However, it is silent on replacing the F13L with MC021, a molluscum contagiosum virus homolog of F13. left 233045 0 0 933450 27940 0 0 Bryk P. teaches that vaccinia virus (VACV) is the prototypic poxvirus and the protein F13 is conserved across the subfamily Chordopoxvi rinae . It has been shown to be required to produce the wrapped forms of virus that are required for cell-to-cell spread. F13 is included on wrapped forms of virus (Abstract, page ix) and viruses lacking or deficient in the function of F13 are highly attenuated both in vitro and in vivo (See bridging pages 10-11). At the same time, Bryk P. teaches that MOCV ( molluscum contagiosum virus ) encodes putative homologs of wrapped virion-specific proteins in VACV, of which the homolog of F13, MC021, shares the greatest amino acid sequence identity (See page ix). Bryk P. further discloses that they have characterized a recombinant vaccinia virus expressing an HA epitope-tagged version of MC021L (MC021L-HA) inserted into the F13L locus under the native VACV promoter (See page 75, paragraph 3) and t he plaque phenotype of vMC021L-HA was considerably smaller than that of the C-terminal HA-tagged F13 virus (vF13L-HA) [25], yet appeared slightly larger than that of vΔF13L (Fig. 3.2A) (See page 82 and below) , which indicates that the vMC021L-HA is capable of producing EEV at levels greater than vΔF13L and more attenuated at the infections level than vF13L-HA (See page 83). Also, it indicates that that expression of MC021-HA is capable of complementing a deletion of F13L (See page 83). Bryk P. teaches that vMC021L-HA consistently maintained production of EV at a level modestly above that of vΔF13L, ranging from 3- to 12-fold more EV at each time point (Fig. 3.3B) (See page 83). 1000125 3476625 0 0 Accordingly, Bryk P. teaches a recombinant vaccinia virus in which the extracellular virion protein F 1 3 has been replaced with MC021 . The expression of MC021-HA was incorporated into virions, and these virions entered at a rate similar to virions containing F13 (See page 121). Bryk P. also teaches that their work is important for the pursuit of developing a safer vaccine, as targeted mutations within F13 being capable of decreasing the efficiency of infection and increasing the EV particles compared to vΔF13L by replacing vaccinia virus F13L with the MC021L gene (See e.g., pages 23 and 49). Bryk P. teaches their work opens the opportunity to new treatments targeted at preventing the spread of virus early in infection and vaccine development (See page 3), and also teaches constructing a vaccina virus comprises a inserted nucleic acid encoding GFP protein like “ recombinant virus vMC021L-HA and vMC -HA/GFP/lacZ were generated by infecting a monolayer of HeLa cells with vΔF13L or vMC021L-HA, respectively ” (See page 77, paragraph 1 ). It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verardi and Bryk to arrive at an invention as claimed. Verardi teaches the important to develop a highly attenuated VACV in administer ing the immunogenetic antigens into a subject like animal and human . At the same time, Bryk teaches a method for developing a recombinant vaccinia virus with F13 being replaced by the MC021 (vMC021L-HA) and show ing an attenuated vaccina virus compared to the wild-type vF13L-HA and produc ing a higher EV particle compared to vΔF13L VACV, and further for a safe vaccine development . Thus, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to introduce the VACV of Bryk into Verardi’ s study or to apply the antigen of Verardi to Bryk’s construct to develop a method and composition to express the immunogenetic antigen and further administer the composition into a needed subject to induce the immune responses. T here would be a reasonable expectation of success to induce an immune response by administering the vMC021L-HA into a subject as claimed . Thus, the invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 2, 8-9 and 17, Verardi et al. teaches that the antigen is a from an animal pathogen suck as the Glycoprotein G of Rabies virus (See Table 2 above ). Regarding claims 4 and 11, they require the antigen is a bacterial antigen. Verardi et al. teaches using the vaccinia virus to express the M. tuberculosis antigen 85A (See page 964, right column; Table 3). Regarding claims 5 and 12, they require that the antigen is a tumor antigen. Verardi et al. teaches the VACA-based immunotherapy product, Bavarian Nordic MVA-BN® PRO, encodes the prostate specific antigen (PSA) (See Table 4, page 966). Regarding claim 16, it requires that the recombinant vaccinia virus comprises a nucleic acid encoding an immunogenic epitope of an antigen and is capable of expressing the epitope of the antigen upon infection of a target cell. Verardi et al. teaches that a particularly new approach for vaccinia virus is the use of conserved and immunogenic multi-T-cell epitopes that are used in a DNA-prime, peptide boost vaccine regimen like T-cell epitope vaccine with m ulti-T-cell epitope vaccine based on antigenic sequences and DNA-prime, peptide-boost (See page 963, right column, paragraph 3 and Table 1), which teaches the VACV can express an immunogenetic epitope of antigen. Verardi et al. also teaches that for ACA M2000 ( Dryvax ) , s ingle clone derived from Dryvax and propagated in Vero cells and CC SV (NYCBH) can express in MRC-5 cells (See page 961, right column, paragraph 2; Table 1, page 962). Regarding claim 19, it requires that the recombinant vaccinia virus is an enveloped virus and wherein the virus envelop comprises, in addition to MC021, an additional foreign glycoprotein or a portion thereof, wherein the additional foreign glycoprotein is a viral protein from a different virus. Based on the description above, Verardi et al. teaches that a large number of antigens from animal pathogens have been expressed in VACV, and the majority elicit protective immune responses (See page 963, right column, Table 2 and above ), where the glycoprotein antigens can be from Rabies virus and Rift Valley fever virus that are from a different virus. At the same time, Bryk teaches that t he family Poxviridae encompasses a large group of complex enveloped, linear double stranded DNA viruses that can be divided into two subfamilies; the Entomopoxvirinae infect insects, and the Chordopoxvirinae , which infect vertebrates . Among chordopoxviruses , the genus Orthopoxvirus contains the most members capable of infecting humans, including variola virus (VARV) (See page 1). Bryk also teaches that the MC021 can replace the F13 of VACV and incorporate into the EV membrane (See e.g., page 75). Claims 3, 10 , 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verardi et al. (Hum Vaccin Immunother . 2012 Jul;8(7):961-70) in view of Bryk P. (Thesis-Ph.D., University of Rochester, 2018. First presented to the public: 12/31/2019) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-17 and 19 above and further in view of Tscheme et al. ( bioRxiv preprint doi : https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.09.426032 , this version posted January 11, 2021). Claims 3, 10 , 1 8 and 20 further require the viral antigen is from SARS-COV-2 virus. Based on the description above, Verardi and Bryk teaches a method for inducing an immune response by administering a recombinant vaccinia virus compris ing a nucleic acid encoding an immunogenic epitope of the antigen , where the F13 is replaced by the MC021. However, it is silent on the antigen is from SARS-COV-2. Tscherne et al. teaches that they describe the construction and preclinical characterization of a recombinant MVA expressing full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein (MVA-SARS-2-S). Genetic stability and growth characteristics of MVA-SARS-2-S, plus its robust synthesis of S antigen, make it a suitable candidate vaccine for industrial scale production. Vaccinated mice produced S antigen specific CD8+ T cells and serum antibodies binding to S glycoprotein that neutralized SARS - CoV-2. Prime-boost vaccination with MVA-SARS-2-S protected mice sensitized with a human ACE2-expressing adenovirus from SARS-CoV-2 infection. MVA-SARS-2-S is currently being investigated in a phase I clinical trial as aspirant for developing a safe and efficacious vaccine against COVID-19 (See Abstract) . It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the teaching of Tscherne into the studies of Verardi and Bryk to arrive at an invention as claimed. The SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein serves as the most important target antigen for vaccine D evelopment , and Tscherne shows the SARS-CoV-2 S pike can be expressed by the attenuated vaccinia virus, MVA, and induced antibody /T cell responses in mice . O ne of skill in the art would have been motivated to introduce the SARS-CoV-2 Spike as an immunogenetic antigen to construct a VACV of Verardi and Bryk to encode the antigen of SARS-COV-2 and evaluate the effect for inducing the immune responses in vivo. T here would be a reasonable expectation of success to develop such a method and composition to use the recombinant vaccinia virus of Verardi and Bryk to express the antigen of SARS-COV-2 based on Tscherne ’s teachings. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verardi et al. (Hum Vaccin Immunother . 2012 Jul;8(7):961-70) i n view of Bryk P. (Thesis-Ph.D., University of Rochester, 2018. First presented to the public: 12/31/2019) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-17 and 19 above and further in view of Kaufman et al. (J Transl Med. 2009 Jan 7; 7:2). Claims 6 and 13 further require that the recombinant vaccinia virus is administered percutaneously, subcutaneously or intramuscularly. Verardi et al. teaches when administered alone or in conjunction with other treatments (e.g., chemotherapy and cytokines), Trova ® mounted high anti-5T4 immune responses that were associated with increased overall survival (See page 965, right column) and systemic administration of these oncolytic VACV vectors (e.g., intravenously) targets both tumors and metastases, and current clinical trials show that VACV vectors can be an effective oncolytic cancer therapy (See page 967, left column, paragraph 1). However, it is silent on the administration is performed percutaneously, subcutaneously or intramuscularly. Kaufman et al. studies the phase II trial of modified vaccinia ankara (MVA) virus expressing 5T4 and high dose Interleukin-2 (IL-2) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and teaches using sterile syringe to inject 1 mL of solution subcutaneously in the deltoid region (See Kaufman, page 2, right column , paragraph 2 ). For the Phase I trial , Kaufman teaches a study design as a dose of 5 × 108 pfu (1 ml) MVA-5T4 was established as safe in a Phase I trial. In this trial, the first dose was given by intramuscular injection alone and booster vaccination was given 3 weeks later, followed immediately by high dose IL-2 (600,000 IU/kg) given every 8 hours up to a maximum of 15 doses (See page 2 , right column, paragraph 3 ) . Kaufman et al. also teaches that their administration route is used for vaccinia virus expressing 5T4 and high dose Interleukin-2 (IL-2) high-dose IL-2 therapy (See page 2, left column, paragraph 2). It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the teaching of Kaufman into the studies of Verardi and Bryk to arrive at an invention as claimed. Verardi teaches that Trovax ® mounted high anti-5T4 immune responses that were associated with increased overall survival . Kaufman designs a safe administration route for inject ing the Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA) virus expressing 5T4 in patients. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the administrating route of Kaufman to treat cancer patient. There would be a reasonable expectation of success to develop such administration method as claimed. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RUIXUE WANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7960 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm, EST. 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 on (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. /RUIXUE WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1672 /NICOLE KINSEY WHITE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672