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 .
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 28-55 are pending.
Claims 28-55 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that Instant Application 18/839,945, filed on 2024, Aug. 20 is a National Stage entry of PCT/CA2023/050236, filed on 2023, Feb. 24, which claims priority from Provisional Application 6,3268,460, filed on 2022, Feb. 24.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 2024, Aug. 20 and 2025, Apr. 15 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretations
Claims 32 and 44 recite the limitation “a body weight reduction relative to baseline of about 0.1 and about 7%, between about 1 and about 6%, between about 2 and about 5%, and between about 3 and about 5%.” For the purposes of this examination, the disclosed ranges are being interpreted as being in the alternative and therefore does not rise to a 112(b) rejection.
Claims 33 and 45 recite the limitation “a triglycerides reduction relative to baseline between about 1 and about 10%, between about 2 and about 9%, between about 3 and about 8%.” For the purposes of this examination, the disclosed ranges are being interpreted as being in the alternative and therefore does not rise to a 112(b) rejection.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 28-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunos (US 9,765,031 B2; published 2017, Sept. 19) as evidenced by Ress (Mechanisms of Intrahepatic Triglyceride Accumulation. World J Gastroenterol. 2016, 22(4) 1664-1673. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i4.1664) and evidenced by Garvey (American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology Comprehensive Clinical Practice Guidelines for Medical Care of Patients with Obesity. Endocr. Pract. 2016, 22, 842-884. doi: 10.4158/EP161356.ESGL), and evidenced by Riddle (2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes–2019. Diabetes Care, 2019, 42(Suppl. 1):S13-S28. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-S002).
Claims 28-29 are directed to methods for reducing body weight, triglycerides, and glucose intolerance in a human subject determined as having abdominal obesity characterized by a waist circumference ≥88 cm for female subjects or ≥102 cm for male subjects, wherein said reduction is relative to baseline level before treatment and wherein said method comprises orally administering a compound of Formula I or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof to the human subject for a period of at least 28 days:
PNG
media_image1.png
293
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Kunos teaches compounds for mediating the cannabinoid receptor (title), pharmaceutical compositions thereof comprising at least one pharmaceutically acceptable additive (column 4, lines 24-27), and methods of use thereof for preventing or reversing the deposition of adipose tissue in a subject (column 4, lines 38-41). Kunos teaches the cannabinoid receptor mediating compounds with the structure of Formula II (column 37, lines 5-20).
PNG
media_image2.png
195
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One compound of Formula II, designated as compound 72, is an embodiment wherein R1 = CF3 and A =
PNG
media_image3.png
125
291
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(column 55, Table 2), thereby arriving at the instant compound of Formula I.
Kunos fails to teach an embodiment wherein compound 72 is used to treat obesity and/or reducing weight.
However, Kunos teaches another embodiment of Formula II as compound 2, wherein R1 = Cl and A =
PNG
media_image3.png
125
291
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. It would have been prima facie obvious to substitute one molecule for another in a similar treatment. One skilled in the art would expect success because both compounds 2 and compound 72 are structurally similar based on at least the genus linking them as having similar properties. Further, Kunos lists compound 72 as a specie with all groups defined indicating its preferred nature.
Kunos further teaches these compounds improve aspects of metabolic syndrome, including reduction of food intake and body weight, reversal of hepatic steatosis, and inadequate glucose tolerance (columns 24-25). While Kunos does not explicitly state these compounds reduce triglycerides, it is known in the art that hepatic steatosis is the accumulation of hepatic triglycerides (see Ress, abstract). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that reversal of hepatic steatosis is a reduction of triglycerides.
Kunos further teaches prophylactic and therapeutic use of these compounds through oral administration to the subject (column 30, lines 7-10), wherein the subject includes humans (column 7, lines 44-47). Abdominal obesity in the US, Canada, and Europe is defined as a waist circumference ≥88 cm for women and ≥102 cm men (see Garvey, page 854, Table 7). Therefore, treating a woman who has a waist circumference of ≥88 cm or a man who has a waist circumference ≥102 cm is equal to treating a patient with abdominal obesity.
Kunos further teaches the compound can be administered to the subject by oral route for prophylactic and therapeutic purposes, and be in a repeated administration protocol (for example, by an hourly, daily, or weekly, repeated administration protocol) (column 30, lines 7-20). Kunos does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the compound is administered orally for at least 28 days, however, Kunos teaches dosing regimens can be adjusted to provide an optimum prophylactic or therapeutic response (column 30, 45-47). Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art could arrive at a dosing regimen of administering the compound for at least 28 days through routine optimization based around the indication and severity of the subject in need.
Claims 30 and 42 are directed to the methods above wherein the subject presents one or more of the following:
Fasting triglyverides > 1.5 mmol/L for males and females; and/or
An OGTT indicating impaired glucose tolerance as indicated by a 2-h value of > 140 mg/dl or any value > 200 mg/dl at any time point; or
A HbA1c level ≥ 5.7% but ≤ 6.4%.
Kunos teaches methods of using the above cannabinoid receptors to treat obesity and diabetes, inter alia (column 4, lines 28-30). Prior to the effective filing date of the current invention, it was known in the art that the above parameters are used as the criteria for testing for diabetes or prediabetes, which is associated with obesity and especially abdominal or visceral obesity (see Riddle, page S11, middle column, “Prediabetes”). Therefore, by administering the compound to a subject with abdominal obesity, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage the subjects presenting with one of more of the above-recited parameters.
Claims 31 and 43 are directed to the above methods, wherein the subject exhibits no significant change relative to baseline for bilirubin, AST and/or ALT after 28 days of treatment with the compound.
Kunos teaches a method of treating mice with diet-induced obesity with compound 2 at 10 mg/kg/day (column 4, lines 60-65).
The difference between the teaching of Kunos and the instant application is that Kunos is silent on the use of compound 72, fails to teach an embodiment wherein the subject is human, and is silent on the subjects’ change in bilirubin, AST, and/or ALT after 28 days of treatment.
However, Kunos teaches the mice are treated with compound 2 and further teaches the compound of instant Formula I as compound 72. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could readily apply the prong (B) rationale of In re KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), in which obviousness entails simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results to substitute compound 2 for compound 72 and arrive at the current invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Kunos further teaches prophylactic and therapeutic use of these compounds to subjects, wherein the subject includes humans (column 7, lines 44-47).
Furthermore, it is noted that MPEP 2112 discusses the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter which there is reason to believe inherently includes functions that are newly cited or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to "prove that subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess characteristic relied on" (205 USPQ 594, second column, first full paragraph). In the present case the burden is shifted to Applicant to prove that the method as taught by Kunos does not result in significant change relative to baseline for bilirubin, AST, and/or ALT after 28 days of treatment.
Applicant is reminded that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutual exclusive properties.” Any properties exhibited by or benefits from are not given any patentable weight over the prior art provided the composition is inherent. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the disclosed properties are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show that the prior art product does not inherently possess the same properties as the instantly claimed product.
Claims 32 and 44 are directed to the above method wherein the subject exhibits a body weight reduction relative to baseline between about 0.1 and about 7% after 28 days of treatment.
Kunos teaches mice with diet-induced obesity were orally treated for 14 days with the compound 2 at 10 mg/kg/day (column 4, lines 60-65). Prior to treatment, the mice weighed about 4.75 g and after treatment weighed about 4.5 g (Figure 5A). The subjects therefore experienced a body weight reduction relative to baseline of about 5%, which falls within the instantly claimed range. While Kunos teaches administration of the compound for 14 days, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in extending the dosing time course to 28 days while maintaining the necessary body weight reduction.
The difference between the teaching of Kunos and the instant application is that Kunos fails to teach dosing of the subject with compound 72, wherein the subject is human.
However, Kunos teaches prophylactic and therapeutic use of these compounds to subjects, wherein the subject includes humans (column 7, lines 44-47).
Furthermore, by applying the prong (B) rationale of In re KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), in which obviousness entails simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute compound 2 for compound 72 to arrive at the current invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 33 and 45 are directed to the above method wherein the subject exhibits a triglycerides reduction relative to baseline between about 1 and about 10% after 28 days of treatment.
Kunos teaches mice with diet-induced obesity were orally treated for 14 days with the compound 2 at 10 mg/kg/day (column 4, lines 60-65). The mice that were administered the compound had hepatic TG levels of about 75 mg/g while control animals had hepatic TG levels of about 125 mg/g (Figure 5D). The subjects therefore experienced a triglyceride reduction relative to baseline of about 40%. This value falls outside of the recited range, however a person of ordinary skill in the art could optimize the dosage so the patient loses less weight in the necessary amount of time.
The difference between the teaching of Kunos and the instant application is that Kunos fails to teach dosing of the subject with compound 72, wherein the subject is human.
However, Kunos teaches prophylactic and therapeutic use of these compounds to subjects, wherein the subject includes humans (column 7, lines 44-47).
Furthermore, by applying the prong (B) rationale of In re KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), in which obviousness entails simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute compound 2 for compound 72 to arrive at the current invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 34 and 46 are directed to the above method wherein the subject exhibits a change in leptin levels relative to baseline of about 10% and about 20%, after 28 days of treatment.
Kunos teaches mice with diet-induced obesity were orally treated for 14 days with the compound 2 at 10 mg/kg/day (column 4, lines 60-65). The mice that were administered the compound had serum leptin levels of about 50 ng/mL while the control animals had serum leptin levels of about 60 ng/mL (Figure 5C). The subjects therefore experienced a leptin level reduction of about 17%, which falls within the recited range.
The difference between the teaching of Kunos and the instant application is that Kunos fails to teach dosing of the subject with compound 72, wherein the subject is human.
However, Kunos teaches prophylactic and therapeutic use of these compounds to subjects, wherein the subject includes humans (column 7, lines 44-47).
Furthermore, by applying the prong (B) rationale of In re KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), in which obviousness entails simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute compound 2 for compound 72 to arrive at the current invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 35 and 47 are directed to the above methods wherein the subject exhibits a reduction in LDL level relative to baseline of at least about 0.1 mmol/L to about 1 mmol/L after 28 days of treatment with the compound.
Kunos teaches mice with diet-induced obesity were orally treated for 14 days with the compound 2 at 10 mg/kg/day (column 4, lines 60-65).
The difference between the teaching of Kunos and the instant application is that Kunos fails to teach dosing of the subject with compound 72, wherein the subject is human. Kunos is also silent on the reduction in LDL level of the subject.
However, Kunos teaches prophylactic and therapeutic use of these compounds to subjects, wherein the subject includes humans (column 7, lines 44-47).
Furthermore, by applying the prong (B) rationale of In re KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), in which obviousness entails simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute compound 2 for compound 72 to arrive at the current invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it is noted that MPEP 2112 discusses the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter which there is reason to believe inherently includes functions that are newly cited or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to "prove that subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess characteristic relied on" (205 USPQ 594, second column, first full paragraph). In the present case the burden is shifted to Applicant to prove that the method as taught by Kunos does not result in the reduction of LDL level relative to baseline of at least about 0.1 mmol/L to about 1 mmol/L after 28 days of treatment.
Applicant is reminded that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutual exclusive properties.” Any properties exhibited by or benefits from are not given any patentable weight over the prior art provided the composition is inherent. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the disclosed properties are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show that the prior art product does not inherently possess the same properties as the instantly claimed product.
Claims 36 and 48 are directed to the above methods, wherein the subject exhibits a reduction in VLDL level relative to baseline of at least about 0.03 mmol/L to about 1 mmol/L after 28 days of treatment.
Kunos teaches mice with diet-induced obesity were orally treated for 14 days with the compound 2 at 10 mg/kg/day (column 4, lines 60-65).
The difference between the teaching of Kunos and the instant application is that Kunos fails to teach dosing of the subject with compound 72, wherein the subject is human. Kunos is also is silent on the reduction in VLDL level of the subject.
However, Kunos teaches prophylactic and therapeutic use of these compounds to subjects, wherein the subject includes humans (column 7, lines 44-47).
Furthermore, by applying the prong (B) rationale of In re KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), in which obviousness entails simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute compound 2 for compound 72 to arrive at the current invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it is noted that MPEP 2112 discusses the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter which there is reason to believe inherently includes functions that are newly cited or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to "prove that subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess characteristic relied on" (205 USPQ 594, second column, first full paragraph). In the present case the burden is shifted to Applicant to prove that the method as taught by Kunos does not result in the reduction in VLDL level relative to baseline of at least about 0.03 mmol/L to about 1 mmol/L after 28 days of treatment.
Applicant is reminded that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutual exclusive properties.” Any properties exhibited by or benefits from are not given any patentable weight over the prior art provided the composition is inherent. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the disclosed properties are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show that the prior art product does not inherently possess the same properties as the instantly claimed product.
Claims 37 and 49 are directed to the methods above, wherein the subject exhibits a reduction in total cholesterol levels relative to baseline of at least about 0.1 mmol/L to about 1 mmol/L after 28 days of treatment.
Kunos teaches mice with diet-induced obesity were orally treated for 14 days with the compound 2 at 10 mg/kg/day (column 4, lines 60-65).
The difference between the teaching of Kunos and the instant application is that Kunos fails to teach dosing of the subject with compound 72, wherein the subject is human. Kunos is also is silent on the reduction in total cholesterol level of the subject.
However, Kunos teaches prophylactic and therapeutic use of these compounds to subjects, wherein the subject includes humans (column 7, lines 44-47).
Furthermore, by applying the prong (B) rationale of In re KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), in which obviousness entails simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute compound 2 for compound 72 to arrive at the current invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it is noted that MPEP 2112 discusses the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter which there is reason to believe inherently includes functions that are newly cited or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to "prove that subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess characteristic relied on" (205 USPQ 594, second column, first full paragraph). In the present case the burden is shifted to Applicant to prove that the method as taught by Kunos does not result in the reduction in total cholesterol levels relative to baseline of at least about 0.1 mmol/L to about 1 mmol/L after 28 days of treatment.
Applicant is reminded that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutual exclusive properties.” Any properties exhibited by or benefits from are not given any patentable weight over the prior art provided the composition is inherent. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the disclosed properties are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show that the prior art product does not inherently possess the same properties as the instantly claimed product.
Claims 38-41 and 52-55 are directed to the above method wherein the compound of Formula I is for oral administration to the subject at a dose of more or less than about 25 mg, and wherein the compound is administered daily.
Kunos teaches mice with diet-induced obesity were orally treated with compound 2 at 10 mg/kg/day (column 4, lines 60-65).
The difference between the teaching of Kunos and the instant application is that Kunos fails to teach a specific embodiment wherein the subject was administered an amount of compound that is more than about 25 mg.
However, Kunos further teaches compound 2 showed efficacy in the dosed mice in reducing body weight, serum leptin levels, and liver triglyceride levels compared to control (Figures 5A, 5C-5D). Kunos further teaches that the actual dosage of the compound will vary according to factors such as the disease indication and particular status of the subject (for example, the subject’s age, size, fitness, extent of symptoms, susceptibility factors, and the like), time and route of administration, other drugs or treatments being administered concurrently, as well as the specific pharmacology of the compound for eliciting the desired activity or biological response in the subject (column 30, lines 38-45).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that compound dosage is a result-effective variable for controlling common obesity parameters. Consequently, said skilled artisan would have been motivated to arrive at the recited dosage via routine experimentation in view of MPEP 2144.05, which states "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, the instant claims are rendered obvious.
The difference between the teaching of Kunos and the instant application is that Kunos fails to teach dosing of the subject with compound 72, wherein the subject is human.
However, Kunos teaches prophylactic and therapeutic use of these compounds to subjects, wherein the subject includes humans (column 7, lines 44-47).
Furthermore, by applying the prong (B) rationale of In re KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), in which obviousness entails simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute compound 2 for compound 72 to arrive at the current invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 50 and 51 are directed to the methods above, wherein the subject exhibits no significant changes in subjective appetite sensations during treatment as determined by an appetite and Food Intake Questionnaire.
Kunos teaches that mice were orally administered compound 2 at 10/mg/kg/day (column 4, lines 60-65). The cumulative food intake of the dosed mice was linear and aligns well with control, corresponding to no significant change in appetite (Figure 5B).
The difference between the teaching of Kunos and the instant application is that Kunos fails to teach dosing of the subject with compound 72, wherein the subject is human. Kunos also fails to teach where the subject indicates no significant changes in subjective appetite sensations during treatment as determined by an appetite and Food Intake Questionnaire.
However, Kunos teaches prophylactic and therapeutic use of these compounds to subjects, wherein the subject includes humans (column 7, lines 44-47).
Furthermore, by applying the prong (B) rationale of In re KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), in which obviousness entails simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute compound 2 for compound 72 to arrive at the current invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it is noted that MPEP 2112 discusses the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter which there is reason to believe inherently includes functions that are newly cited or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to "prove that subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess characteristic relied on" (205 USPQ 594, second column, first full paragraph). In the present case the burden is shifted to Applicant to prove that the method as taught by Kunos does not result in no significant change in appetite of the subject that would be noted on a Food Intake Questionnaire.
Applicant is reminded that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutual exclusive properties.” Any properties exhibited by or benefits from are not given any patentable weight over the prior art provided the composition is inherent. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the disclosed properties are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show that the prior art product does not inherently possess the same properties as the instantly claimed product.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Arcoria whose telephone number is (571)272-8719. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Clinton Brooks can be reached at (571)270-7682. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1621
/CLINTON A BROOKS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights