DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 6, 7, 10-15, 19-25, 27, and 31-33 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed on August 12, 2025, is acknowledged. This listing of the claims replaces all previous versions and listings of the claims.
Applicant’s remarks filed on August 12, 2025 in response to the non-final rejection mailed on May 9, 2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered.
Rejections previously applied to claims 1-5, 8, and 9 are withdrawn in view of the instant amendment to cancel these claims.
Restriction/Election
In response to a requirement for restriction/election mailed February 27, 2025, applicant elected with traverse Group I, claims 1-15, drawn to an isolated polynucleotide, an expression cassette, a vector a host cell, and a method of producing a protein having sweet-taste modulation activity, in the reply filed on April 24, 2025. The requirement was deemed proper and made FINAL in the Office action mailed on May 9, 2025.
Claims 19-25, 27, 32, and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 6, 7, 10-15, and 31 are being examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 12, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The objection to claims 6 and 7 are withdrawn in view of the instant amendments to claims 6 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Applicant’s attention is directed to the "Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products”, released on December 16, 2014. This rejection is necessitated by the instant claim amendment.
Claim Interpretation: As amended, claim 6 is drawn to an isolated polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide, wherein the amino acid sequence of the polypeptide consists of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:141 or the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 142.
Newly added claim 31 is drawn to the polynucleotide of claim 6, wherein the amino acid sequence of the polypeptide consists of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 141.
According to the specification, SEQ ID NO: 141 is the amino acid sequence of a naturally-occurring isoform of mycodulcein (paragraph [0012]) and given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims encompass a naturally-occurring polynucleotide.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 1: The claims are drawn to a polynucleotide, which is a composition of matter and one of the statutory categories of invention.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: The claimed polynucleotide is not considered to have markedly different characteristics from what occurs in nature, and the polynucleotide is considered to be a law of nature exception. Accordingly, the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements recited in claims 6 and 31 beyond the judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The claims only recite the law of nature and do not include any additional elements that could add significantly more to the judicial exception.
As such, the claims do not qualify as eligible subject matter. For these reasons the claims are rejected under section 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nadal et al. (U.S. 2021/0401013 A1; cited on Form PTO-892 mailed on May 9, 2025; hereafter “Nadal”).
Claim 10 is drawn to an expression cassette comprising the isolated polynucleotide of claim 1.
Claim 11 is drawn to a vector comprising the isolated polynucleotide of claim 1.
The use of "consists" in claim 6 does not limit the open-ended "comprising" language in claims 10 and 11 (see MPEP 2111.03.II) and given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the expression cassette and vector of claims 10 and 11 encompass any nucleotide sequence added to the 5’ and 3’ ends of the polynucleotide of claim 6.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Nadal teaches mycodulcein (abbreviated as Myd) is a sweet-tasting protein identified from fungi (paragraph [0008]) and has a sweet taste modifying activity (paragraph [0035]). Nadal teaches the nucleic acids of SEQ ID NO: 20 and SEQ ID NO: 22 for expression of His-tagged mycodulcein in E. coli and S. cerevisiae, respectively (paragraph [0014]). Nadal teaches SEQ ID NO: 20 and SEQ ID NO: 22 encode the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 21 (paragraph [0014]). SEQ ID NO: 21 of Nadal comprises the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO: 141 and SEQ ID NO: 142 of this application (see Appendix at p. 19 of the Office action mailed on May 9, 2025 for sequence alignment). Nadal teaches an expression vector or expression cassette for expressing the nucleic acids (paragraphs [0079] and [0124]). Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, Nadal’s expression vector and expression cassette anticipate claims 10 and 11.
Claim 12 is drawn to a host cell transformed with the vector of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Nadal teaches a host cell comprising the expression vector (paragraphs [0080] and [0124]).
Claim 13 is drawn to a method of producing a polypeptide having sweet-taste modulation activity, comprising culturing the host cell of claim 12 in a medium under conditions that result in producing the polypeptide having sweet-taste modulation activity.
Claim 14 is drawn to the method of claim 13, wherein the host cell is transformed with a vector comprising an isolated polynucleotide which encodes a polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:141.
Claim 15 is drawn to the method of claim 13, wherein the host cell is transformed with a vector comprising an isolated polynucleotide which encodes a polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:142.
The use of "consists" in claims 14 and 15 does not limit the open-ended "comprising" language (see MPEP 2111.03.II) and given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited vector of claims 14 and 15 encompasses any nucleotide sequence added to the 5’ and 3’ ends of the isolated polynucleotide which encodes a polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 141 and 142, respectively.
Regarding claims 13-15, Nadal teaches the Myd protein is produced by culturing a transformant comprising the polynucleotide encoding the Myd polypeptide in an appropriate medium (paragraph [0123]). As stated above, Nadal teaches the nucleic acids of SEQ ID NO: 20 and SEQ ID NO: 22 encoding the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 21 (paragraph [0014]). SEQ ID NO: 21 of Nadal comprises the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO: 141 and SEQ ID NO: 142 of this application (see Appendix at p. 19 of the Office action mailed on May 9, 2025 for sequence alignment).
Therefore, Nadal anticipates claims 10-15 as written.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant argues the rejection is obviated by amendment.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. As stated above, the use of "consists" in claim 6 does not limit the open-ended "comprising" language in claims 10 and 11 (see MPEP 2111.03.II) and given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed expression cassette and vector encompass any nucleotide sequence added to the ends of the polynucleotide of claim 6. Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, Nadal’s expression vector, expression cassette, host cell, and method anticipate claims 10-15 as written.
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 6, 7, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadal in view of Liu et al. (“Removal of the N-terminal methionine improves the sweetness of the recombinant expressed sweet-tasting protein brazzeinand its mutants in Escherichia coli,” J. Food Biochem. 45:e13354, 2020, 6 pages; cited on Form PTO-892 mailed on May 9, 2025; hereafter “Liu”).
As amended, claim 6 is drawn to an isolated polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide, wherein the amino acid sequence of the polypeptide consists of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:141 or the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 142.
As amended, claim 7 is drawn to the isolated polynucleotide of claim 6, wherein the amino acid sequence of the polypeptide consists of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 142.
Newly added claim 31 is drawn to the polynucleotide of claim 6, wherein the amino acid sequence of the polypeptide consists of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 141.
The relevant teachings of Nadal as applied to claims 10-15 are set forth above.
The difference between Nadal and claims 6, 7, and 31 is that the mycodulcein of SEQ ID NO: 21 of Nadal has an N-terminal methionine.
Liu teaches the sweet-tasting proteins brazzein and monellin (p. 1, Introduction; p. 5, column 1, middle). Liu teaches improving the sweetness of recombinant brazzein and recombinant monellin by removal of the N-terminal methionine (p. 5, column 1, middle).
In view of the combined teachings of Nadal and Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make a polynucleotide that encodes mycodulcein of SEQ ID NO: 21 of Nadal without the N-terminal methionine. One would have been motivated to do this because Nadal taught the mycodulcein of SEQ ID NO: 21 is a sweet-tasting protein that can be recombinantly produced and taught altering the sequence of mycodulcein to improve sweetness (e.g., paragraph [0211]), and Liu taught removing the N-terminal methionine from a sweet-tasting recombinant protein to improve its sweetness. One would have expected success because Liu taught expressing a sweet-tasting protein without its N-terminal methionine, which had the effect of improving sweetness. Therefore, the isolated polynucleotide of claims 6, 7, and 31 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant points to Liu’s phrase “We have also reported that the N-terminal methionine could affect the sweetness of recombinant sweet protein monellin in P. pastoris,” which cites to Cai et al., 2016. Applicant interprets this phrase as meaning that Liu is teaching that removal of the N-terminal methionine sometimes improves sweetness while other times it does not and Liu does not clearly associate removal of the N-terminal methionine with improved sweetness and thus, according to applicant, Liu does not teach or suggest improving sweetness of recombinant brazzein and recombinant monellin by removal of the N-terminal methionine.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. Rather than relying on applicant’s interpretation of Liu’s statement and reference to Cai, it is more instructive to review the actual findings reported in Cai. Cai, which is cited in applicant’s IDS filed on August 12, 2025, shows that removal of the N-terminal methionine increases sweetness of recombinant monellin expressed in E. coli and P. pastoris (p. 1944, Table 1). Given that removal of the N-terminal methionine increased sweetness for both recombinant brazzein and recombinant monellin and Liu does not teach or suggest a single instance where removal of the N-terminal methionine of a sweet tasting protein did not increase sweetness, one would have recognized that Liu is clearly and positively associating the removal of the N-terminal methionine with improved sweetness.
Applicant further argues sweet-tasting proteins do not share sequence homology or a structure-function relationship and one would have had no reasonable expectation of success that removal of the N-terminal methionine of mycodulcein would have improved its sweetness.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. Liu teaches that removal of the N-terminal methionine improved sweetness in both recombinant brazzein and recombinant monellin and Nadal correlates the structure of the N-terminus to sweet taste (paragraph [0213]). Therefore, contrary to applicant’s position, one would have been motivated to make a polynucleotide that encodes Nadal’s mycodulcein (i.e., SEQ ID NO: 21 of Nadal) without the N-terminal methionine. Given that Liu provides guidance for making a polynucleotide that encodes a sweet polypeptide without its N-terminal methionine, which requires only routine experimentation, one would have had a reasonable expectation of success to make a polynucleotide that encodes Nadal’s mycodulcein (i.e., SEQ ID NO: 21 of Nadal) without the N-terminal methionine.
For these reasons, it is the examiner’s position that the invention of claims 6, 7, and 31 would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim Rejections - 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
The rejection of claims 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,356 B2,
the provisional rejection of claims 10-13 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9 of co-pending Application no. 18/146,958, and
the provisional rejection of claims 10-13 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of co-pending Application no. 18/943,496
are withdrawn in view of the instant amendment to claims 10 and 11 to depend from claim 6.
U.S. Patent No. 11,297,861 B2
Claims 10-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,297,861 B2 (cited on the IDS filed on January 15, 2025). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the patent recites an isolated polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide selected from the group consisting of:
(a) a polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 3; and
(b) a polypeptide comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 95% sequence identity to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 3;
wherein the polypeptide has sweet-taste modulation activity, and
wherein the isolated polynucleotide is operably linked to a heterologous regulatory element; and
claim 18 of the patent recites the polypeptide comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 21 or SEQ ID NO: 24; and
claim 19 of the patent recites the isolated polynucleotide comprises the nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 20 or SEQ ID NO: 23.
SEQ ID NO: 20 of the patent encodes the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 21, and SEQ ID NO: 21 of the patent has a C-terminal His tag and comprises the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO: 141 and SEQ ID NO: 142 of this application.
SEQ ID NO: 23 of the patent encodes the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 24, and SEQ ID NO: 24 of the patent optionally has a C-terminal His tag and also has a D3E mutation relative to SEQ ID NO: 21 of the patent.
Regarding instant claim 10, claim 4 of the patent recites an expression cassette comprising the isolated polynucleotide of claim 1.
Regarding instant claim 11, claim 5 of the patent recites a vector comprising the isolated polynucleotide of claim 1.
Regarding instant claim 12, claim 6 of the patent recites a host cell transformed with the vector of claim 5.
Regarding instant claims 13-15, claim 7 of the patent recites a method of producing a protein having sweet-taste modulation activity, comprising culturing the host cell of claim 6 in a medium under conditions that result in producing the protein having sweet-taste modulation activity.
Therefore, claims 10-15 of this application are unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 18, and 19 of the patent.
Claims 6, 7, and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,297,861 B2 (cited on the IDS filed on January 15, 2025) in view of Liu. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The difference between instant claims 6, 7, and 31 and the claims of the patent is that the claims of the patent do not recite SEQ ID NO: 21 without an N-terminal methionine.
Liu teaches the sweet-tasting proteins brazzein and monellin (p. 1, Introduction; p. 5, column 1, middle). Liu teaches improving the sweetness of recombinant brazzein and recombinant monellin by removal of the N-terminal methionine (p. 5, column 1, middle).
In view of the combined teachings of Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make a polynucleotide that encodes SEQ ID NO: 21 of the patent without the N-terminal methionine. One would have been motivated to do this because SEQ ID NO: 21 of the patent is a sweet-tasting protein that can be recombinantly produced, and Liu taught removing the N-terminal methionine from a sweet-tasting recombinant protein to improve its sweetness. One would have expected success because Liu taught expressing a sweet-tasting protein without its N-terminal methionine, which had the effect of improving sweetness.
Therefore, claims 6, 7, and 31 of this application are unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 18, and 19 of the patent in view of Liu.
U.S. Patent No. 12,171,249 B2
Claims 10-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13, 16, 19-21, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,249 B2 (cited on the IDS filed on January 15, 2025). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 13 of the patent recites a polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide selected from the group consisting of:
(a) a polypeptide comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 95% sequence identity to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 3; and
(b) a polypeptide sequence modified from the polypeptide sequence of SEQ ID NO:3 by deletion, insertion, substitution, or addition of no more than 6 amino acids,
wherein the polypeptide is not a naturally occurring Myd (mycodulcein) polypeptide of Mattirolomyces terfezioides; and
claim 16 of the patent recites wherein the polynucleotide sequence encoding the polypeptide is operably linked to a heterologous regulatory sequence.
SEQ ID NO: 3 of the patent comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 141 of this application.
Regarding instant claim 10, claim 19 of the patent recites an expression cassette comprising the isolated polynucleotide of claim 13.
Regarding instant claim 11, claim 20 of the patent recites a vector comprising the isolated polynucleotide of claim 13.
Regarding instant claim 12, claim 21 of the patent recites a host cell transformed with the vector of claim 20.
Regarding instant claims 13-15, claim 23 of the patent recites a method of producing a protein having sweet-taste modulation activity, comprising culturing the host cell of claim 21 in a medium under conditions that result in producing the protein having sweet-taste modulation activity.
Therefore, claims 10-15 of this application are unpatentable over claims 13, 16-21, and 23 of the patent.
Claims 6, 7, and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13, 16-21, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,249 B2 (cited on the IDS filed on January 15, 2025) in view of Liu. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The difference between instant claims 6, 7, and 31 and the claims of the patent is that the claims of the patent do not recite SEQ ID NO: 3 without an N-terminal methionine.
Liu teaches the sweet-tasting proteins brazzein and monellin (p. 1, Introduction; p. 5, column 1, middle). Liu teaches improving the sweetness of recombinant brazzein and recombinant monellin by removal of the N-terminal methionine (p. 5, column 1, middle).
In view of the combined teachings of Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make a polynucleotide that encodes SEQ ID NO: 3 of the patent without the N-terminal methionine. One would have been motivated to do this because SEQ ID NO: 3 of the patent is a sweet-tasting protein that can be recombinantly produced, and Liu taught removing the N-terminal methionine from a sweet-tasting recombinant protein to improve its sweetness. One would have expected success because Liu taught expressing a sweet-tasting protein without its N-terminal methionine, which had the effect of improving sweetness.
Therefore, claims 6, 7, and 31 of this application are unpatentable over claims 13, 16-21, and 23 of the patent in view of Liu.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant reiterates the arguments addressing the obviousness of claims 6 and 7 as set forth above.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because, at least for the reasons set forth above, it would have been obvious to modify the polynucleotide of the claims of the patent to express a polypeptide lacking the N-terminal methionine.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 6, 7, 10-15, 19-25, 27, and 31-33 are pending in the application.
Claims 19-25, 27, 32, and 33 are withdrawn.
Claims 6, 7, 10-15, and 31 are rejected.
No claim is in condition for allowance.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J STEADMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 AM to 4:00 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, MANJUNATH N. RAO can be reached on 571-272-0939. 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.
/David Steadman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656