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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/11/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12,527,786, US Patent No. 12,521,385, and US Patent No. 12,036,220 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to claim 35 is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The rejections of claims 34-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The rejections of claims 23-32 and 34-39 on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting over the claims of US Patent No. 12,527,786, US Patent No. 12,521,385, and US Patent No. 12,036,220 in view of the cited prior art are withdrawn in view of the filed terminal disclaimer and request for reconsideration.
The provisional rejections of claims 23-32 and 34-39 on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting over the claims of copending Application 18/199,244 in view of the cited prior art are withdrawn in view of the abandonment of Application 18/199,244.
Claim Status
Applicants' amendments and arguments filed on 05/11/2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 1-22, 33, and 40 are cancelled.
Claims 23-32 and 34-39 are pending and under current examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/11/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Rejections Maintained
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “low to intermediate molecular weight cellulose gums” in claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low to intermediate molecular weight cellulose gums” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what molecular weights satisfy being “low to intermediate”, and the metes and bounds of the claim are uncertain.
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.
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.
Claims 23-26 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raz (US 2018/0036303 A1, published February 8, 2018; included on IDS submitted 07/22/2025) as evidenced by Sigma (“Product Information D-Lysergic Acid Diethylamide Tartrate”, https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/deepweb/assets/sigmaaldrich/product/documents/224/330/l114dat.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOop-ayfQzGxOk5YWXm0duxZtKiet6pG8ahnL1FoOptRMk9kBnNal; of record).
Regarding instant claims 23, 26, and 28-31, Raz teaches a pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease comprising lysergic acid diethylamide or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof (abstract, claim 1). The composition may be provided in the form of tablets in a mixture with non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable excipients (paragraphs [0038] and [0043]-[0047]). These excipients include: non-gelling matrix formers consistent with claim 26 (including pregelatinized (modified) starch); binders consistent with claim 28 (including methylcellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, and polyvinylpyrrolidone) which include the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose of claim 29; and fillers consistent with claim 30 (including lactose, mannitol, calcium sulfate, starch, sodium chloride, and sorbitol) which include the mannitol of claim 31.
Regarding instant claim 24-25, Raz exemplifies pharmaceutical compositions comprising D-lysergic acid diethylamide tartrate (Examples 1-2, paragraphs [0071]-[0074]), indicating that D-LSD tartrate is a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of LSD useful in the compositions for treating Alzheimer’s disease of Raz. As evidenced by Sigma, D-lysergic acid diethylamide tartrate comprises the D-tartrate form of tartrate (“Chemical Name”).
Raz does not teach the combination of lysergic acid diethylamide or a salt thereof and excipients with sufficient specificity to anticipate, but rather renders obvious the instant claims. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the prior art elements taught by Raz according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, as described above, Raz teaches pharmaceutical compositions in the form of tablets comprising lysergic acid diethylamide or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof (exemplifying D-LSD d-tartrate as a pharmaceutically acceptable salt) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease. Raz further teaches that compositions may be formulated according to conventional pharmaceutical practice (paragraph [0038]), and provides the above excipients as examples of non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable excipients that can be used in tablet formulations.
Rearrangement of the prior art elements taught by Raz to reach the tablet of the instant claims is within the purview of a person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton and would predictably result in a pharmaceutically acceptable tablet that can be used to treat Alzheimer’s disease. From MPEP 2141 I., "[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.)”.
Claims 27 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raz, as evidenced by Sigma, as applied to claims 23-26 and 28-31 above, and further in view of Gandhi et al. (US 2009/0208576 A1, published August 20, 2009; of record), hereafter “Gandhi”.
The teachings of Raz are set forth above. Raz further teaches that the pharmaceutical composition can be formulated for immediate release, including by oral or sublingual administration (paragraphs [0007], [0039]-[0040]; claim 33), and that tablets can comprise non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable excipient such as granulating and disintegrating agents (e.g., cellulose derivatives including microcrystalline cellulose, starches including potato starch, croscarmellose sodium, alginates, or alginic acid) (paragraph [0044]). Raz further teaches that compositions may be formulated according to conventional pharmaceutical practice (paragraph [0038]).
Raz does not explicitly teach an orally disintegrating tablet (instant claim 32) and does not teach the inclusion of a non-gelling matrix former of maltodextrin (instant claim 27).
Gandhi teaches orally disintegrating tablets which disintegrate within 60 seconds in the oral cavity which are prepared form a co-processed composite (abstract, claims 1 and 20). The tablet comprises an active ingredient selected from those including a drug for Alzheimer’s disease (claim 21), and at least one water-soluble excipient including polysaccharides of maltodextrins (claims 1-3 and 7; paragraph [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the tablet of Raz to be an orally disintegrating tablet, as suggested by Gandhi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as Gandhi teaches that orally disintegrating tablets provide the convenience of a tablet formulation while allowing the ease of swallowing provide by a liquid formulation, encourage adherence to daily medication requirements in patients who have difficulty swallowing, and offer more accurate dosing than oral liquids (paragraph [0026]). There is a reasonable expectation of success as Gandhi teaches that orally disintegrating tablets can comprise a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, and the compositions of Raz are used in the treatment of Alzheimer’s; Raz further indicates that patients suffering from Alzheimer’s have difficulty carrying out even simple tasks (paragraph [0002]). Additionally, as noted above, Raz contemplates compositions formulated for immediate release, including by oral or sublingual administration (paragraphs [0007], [0039]-[0040]; claim 33), and that compositions may be formulated according to conventional pharmaceutical practice (paragraph [0038]).
It would further have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the tablet of Raz to comprise the maltodextrins suggested by Gandhi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate a water-soluble excipient that contributes to the rapid disintegration of pharmaceutical tablets known to be used with drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, as suggested by Gandhi. There is a reasonable expectation of success the compositions of Raz are used in the treatment of Alzheimer’s, and Raz contemplates compositions formulated for immediate release, including by oral or sublingual administration (paragraphs [0007], [0039]-[0040]; claim 33) formulated according to conventional pharmaceutical practice (paragraph [0038]). Additionally, as noted above, Raz teaches the inclusion of disintegrants as an example of pharmaceutically acceptable excipients for use in tablets (paragraph [0044]).
Rejections Maintained, Slightly Modified to Address Amended Claims
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.
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.
Claims 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raz (US 2018/0036303 A1, published February 8, 2018; included on IDS submitted 07/22/2025) as evidenced by Sigma (“Product Information D-Lysergic Acid Diethylamide Tartrate”, https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/deepweb/assets/sigmaaldrich/product/documents/224/330/l114dat.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOop-ayfQzGxOk5YWXm0duxZtKiet6pG8ahnL1FoOptRMk9kBnNal; of record) in view of Gandhi et al. (US 2009/0208576 A1, published August 20, 2009; of record), hereafter “Gandhi”.
Regarding instant claim 34, Raz teaches a pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease comprising lysergic acid diethylamide or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof (abstract, claim 1). The composition may be provided in the form of tablets in a mixture with non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable excipients (paragraphs [0038] and [0043]-[0047]). These excipients include hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and mannitol, and can include granulating and disintegrating agents (paragraph [0044]). Raz further teaches that compositions may be formulated according to conventional pharmaceutical practice (paragraph [0038]).
Regarding instant claims 35-36, Raz exemplifies pharmaceutical compositions comprising D-lysergic acid diethylamide tartrate (Examples 1-2, paragraphs [0071]-[0074]), indicating that D-LSD tartrate is a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of LSD useful in the compositions for treating Alzheimer’s disease. As evidenced by Sigma, D-lysergic acid diethylamide tartrate comprises the D-tartrate form of tartrate (“Chemical Name”).
Regarding instant claims 37-39, Raz further teaches that the pharmaceutical composition can be formulated for immediate release, including by oral or sublingual administration (paragraphs [0007], [0039]-[0040]; claim 33).
Raz does not explicitly teach an orally disintegrating tablet (instant claims 37-39) and does not teach the inclusion of maltodextrin (instant claim 34).
Gandhi teaches orally disintegrating tablets which disintegrate within 60 seconds in the oral cavity which are prepared form a co-processed composite (abstract, claims 1 and 20). The tablet comprises an active ingredient selected from those including a drug for Alzheimer’s disease (claim 21), and at least one water-soluble excipient including polysaccharides of maltodextrins (claims 1-3 and 7; paragraph [0033]-[0034]). Gandhi further teaches that orally disintegrating tablets can comprise a binder of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (claim 26) and comprise mannitol (claim 35).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the tablet of Raz to be an orally disintegrating tablet, as suggested by Gandhi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as Gandhi teaches that orally disintegrating tablets provide the convenience of a tablet formulation while allowing the ease of swallowing provide by a liquid formulation, encourage adherence to daily medication requirements in patients who have difficulty swallowing, and offer more accurate dosing than oral liquids (paragraph [0026]). There is a reasonable expectation of success as Gandhi teaches that orally disintegrating tablets can comprise a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, and the compositions of Raz are used in the treatment of Alzheimer’s; Raz further indicates that patients suffering from Alzheimer’s have difficulty carrying out even simple tasks (paragraph [0002]). Additionally, as noted above, Raz contemplates compositions formulated for immediate release, including by oral or sublingual administration (paragraphs [0007], [0039]-[0040]; claim 33), and that compositions may be formulated according to conventional pharmaceutical practice (paragraph [0038]).
It would further have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the tablet of Raz to comprise the maltodextrins suggested by Gandhi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate a water-soluble excipient that contributes to the rapid disintegration of pharmaceutical tablets known to be used with drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, as suggested by Gandhi. There is a reasonable expectation of success the compositions of Raz are used in the treatment of Alzheimer’s, and Raz contemplates compositions formulated for immediate release, including by oral or sublingual administration (paragraphs [0007], [0039]-[0040]; claim 33) formulated according to conventional pharmaceutical practice (paragraph [0038]). Additionally, as noted above, Raz teaches the inclusion of disintegrants as an example of pharmaceutically acceptable excipients for use in tablets (paragraph [0044]).
Regarding the relative amounts of the components of claim 34, Raz teaches that LSD or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof can be included in an amount sufficient to treat Alzheimer’s disease (claim 1). Gandhi suggests that excipients in orally disintegrating tablets can be included in amounts that result in a desired disintegration time while avoiding a chalky or dry feel in the mouth (paragraphs [0005]-[0011]), and further suggests adjusting the ratio of excipients (paragraph [0036]). The prior art therefore suggests that the amounts and corresponding ratios of LSD or salt thereof and excipients can be routinely optimized to achieve a tablet that contains LSD or salt thereof in an amount sufficient to treat Alzheimer’s disease, achieves a desired disintegration time, and avoids unpleasant mouthfeel. Per MPEP 2144.05 II. A. “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant argues that the terms “low molecular weight dextrans” and “low to intermediate molecular weight cellulose gums” were in common use in the scientific literature at or prior to the effective filing date of the present application, citing to the IDS references “Dextran: Sources, Structures, and Properties” and “The CMC Book”; accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand their meaning.
In response, the Examiner is persuaded from the evidence provided in the “Dextran: Sources, Structure, and Properties” reference (particularly as defined in the abstract) that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the meaning of “low molecular weight dextrans”. However, the Examiner is unpersuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised by the scope of molecular weights that satisfy the limitation of “low to intermediate molecular weight cellulose gums”. While the “The CMC Book” reference cited by Applicant teaches that the molecular weight of CMC can be adjusted and that multiple molecular weights are known (see pg. 10), the reference does not provide evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the metes and bounds of which molecular weights satisfy the limitation of “low to intermediate”. Thus, the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is maintained.
Regarding the rejections of claims 23-26 and 28-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the Office has not identified any teaching in Raz of an actual tablet formulation combining LSD or a salt thereof with excipients from all three of the functional categories recited in claim 23; Raz’s only working examples of LSD formulations are Example 1 of a capsule formulation and Example 2 of sustained release pellets, not a tablet. Applicant argues that Raz presents an undifferentiated excipient list which presents excipients across at least nine distinct functional categories without teaching or suggesting that a PHOSITA should select one excipient from each of the three specific categories recited in claim 23 and combine them in a single tablet with LSD or a salt thereof; the Office has not identified any teaching or suggestion in the cited art to make the category-level suggestions of a non-gelling matrix former (a functional role that Raz does not use as a category label), a binder, and a filler from among the nine different functional excipient categories.
These arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner first respectfully notes that the rejection is one of obviousness and not anticipation; per MPEP 2123 I., “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).” While Raz exemplifies capsule and sustained release pellet formulations, Raz reasonably suggests tablet formulations to the skilled artisan; see particularly paragraph [0038], “the composition may be in the form of, e.g., tablets” and paragraph [0044], “[f]ormulations for oral use include tablets containing the lysergic acid diethylamide, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof”.
Raz further reasonably suggests the inclusion of non-toxic pharmaceutically acceptable excipients that can be included in a tablet formulation comprising LSD or a salt thereof (paragraph [0044]); the Examiner maintains that is well within the purview of the skilled artisan to rearrange excipients known in the art for use in tablets comprising LSD or a salt thereof in order to achieve a pharmaceutically acceptable tablet capable of being used to treat Alzheimer’s disease, as suggested by Raz. From MPEP 2141 I., "[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.)”. Further, per MPEP 2141 II. C., "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.” Further, while Raz does not explicitly recite the functional category of a non-gelling matrix former, the pregelatinized (modified) starch of Raz (recited in instant claim 26) is capable of carrying out this function, as a chemical and its properties are inseparable.
Regarding the rejections of claims 27, 32, and 34-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the Office has not identified any teaching or suggestion in Gandhi to select maltodextrin specifically as a non-gelling matrix former along with a binder and a filler for use in a tablet with LSD or a salt thereof. Applicant argues that, read in context, Gandhi most naturally describe the water-soluble excipient (of which maltodextrin is merely one of many interchangeable options) as serving to address the processing drawbacks of calcium silicate rather than contributing independently to disintegration. The instantly claimed tablets employ maltodextrin in a wholly unrelated role of non-gelling matrix former, and a PHOSITA would have had no motivation to select maltodextrin from Gandhi’s undifferentiated list of water-soluble excipients and employ it for a different purpose in a tablet comprising LSD.
These arguments are unpersuasive. As set forth in the above rejections, Raz teaches that the pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease comprising LSD or a salt thereof can be formulated for immediate release, including by oral or sublingual administration (paragraphs [0007], [0039]-[0040]; claim 33), the inclusion of disintegrating agents (paragraph [0044]), and that the compositions may be formulated according to conventional pharmaceutical practice (paragraph [0038]). Gandhi teaches orally disintegrating tablets (abstract, claims 1 and 20) comprising an active ingredient selected from those including a drug for Alzheimer’s disease (claim 21); Gandhi explicitly claims maltodextrin as a water-soluble excipient useful in such formulations (claim 7) and suggests that such excipients can be used in tablets with rapid disintegration and good mouth feel (paragraph [0011]). The Examiner respectfully maintains that a skilled artisan would be motivated from the teachings of Gandhi to select the maltodextrin claimed by Gandhi as a water soluble excipient with desirable disintegration properties known in the art to be used in rapidly orally disintegrating tablets comprising drugs for Alzheimer’s disease (i.e., according to conventional pharmaceutical practice) in the tablets of Raz used for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.
In view of the forgoing, and as further detailed in the above rejections, the Examiner maintains that the instant claims are rendered obvious over the prior art of the modified Raz.
Conclusion
Applicants’ arguments/remarks are considered unpersuasive. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUDITH M KAMM whose telephone number is (703)756-4575. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571)272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/J.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights