DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Applicant’s amendment filed May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-20 have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Newly submitted claims 19 and 20 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The invention of the originally presented claims, claims 1-7, now claims 1-18 are related to an Fc polypeptide. The invention of newly added claims 19 and 20 are related to a method of treating autoimmune disease or myasthenia gravis.
The inventions of claims 1-18 and claims 19 and 20 are Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. They are distinct because the Fc polypeptide in claims 1-18 can be used for immune-purification and immune-detection in addition to method of treating autoimmune disease or myasthenia gravies.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention in claims 1-18, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claims 1-18 are currently under consideration.
3. In view of applicant’s amendment, following rejections are set forth.
4. 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.
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.
7. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrichts (US 10,316,073) in view of Hinton (US 7,217,798).
Independent claim 1 is drawn to an Fc fragment that binds FcRn comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:3.
SEQ ID NO:3 is the amino acid sequence of construct 1, Fc region of human IgG1 consisting of M252Y/S254T/T256E/M428L/H433K/N434Y (e.g. see pages 57-58 of the instant specification as-filed).
Ulrichts teaches an Fc fragment that is 99.8% identical to the instantly claimed SEQ ID NO:3 with one mismatch (see sequence alignment below):
Instant SEQ ID NO:3 (Qy) alignment to the prior art SEQ ID NO:3 (Db).
RESULT 1
US-14-580-771-3
(NOTE: this sequence has 4 duplicates in the database searched.
See complete list at the end of this report)
Sequence 3, US/14580771
Patent No. 10316073
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: ULRICHTS, PETER
APPLICANT: BLANCHETOT, CHRISTOPHE
APPLICANT: DREIER, TORSTEN
APPLICANT: DE HAARD, JOHANNES
APPLICANT: OBER, E. SALLY WARD
APPLICANT: ONGENAE, NICOLAS G. H.
TITLE OF INVENTION: FCRN ANTAGONISTS AND METHODS OF USE
FILE REFERENCE: 563869 AGX5-015
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/14/580,771
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2014-12-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 61/920,547
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2013-12-24
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 3
SEQ ID NO 3
LENGTH: 226
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Description of Artificial Sequence: Synthetic
polypeptide
Query Match 99.8%; Score 1225; Length 226;
Best Local Similarity 99.6%;
Matches 225; Conservative 1; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 DKTHTCPPCPAPELLGGPSVFLFPPKPKDTLYITREPEVTCVVVDVSHEDPEVKFNWYVD 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 DKTHTCPPCPAPELLGGPSVFLFPPKPKDTLYITREPEVTCVVVDVSHEDPEVKFNWYVD 60
Qy 61 GVEVHNAKTKPREEQYNSTYRVVSVLTVLHQDWLNGKEYKCKVSNKALPAPIEKTISKAK 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 GVEVHNAKTKPREEQYNSTYRVVSVLTVLHQDWLNGKEYKCKVSNKALPAPIEKTISKAK 120
Qy 121 GQPREPQVYTLPPSRDELTKNQVSLTCLVKGFYPSDIAVEWESNGQPENNYKTTPPVLDS 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 GQPREPQVYTLPPSRDELTKNQVSLTCLVKGFYPSDIAVEWESNGQPENNYKTTPPVLDS 180
Qy 181 DGSFFLYSKLTVDKSRWQQGNVFSCSVLHEALKFHYTQKSLSLSPG 226
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||:||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 DGSFFLYSKLTVDKSRWQQGNVFSCSVMHEALKFHYTQKSLSLSPG 226
The prior art Fc fragment consists of amino acid substitutions M252Y/S254T/T256E/H433K/N434Y; these substitutions are identical to the substitutions in the instant SEQ ID NO:3, except that the prior art dose not teach M428L substitution. Ulrichts further teaches that the Fc fragment is linked to a half-life extender including human serum albumin (e.g. see lines 15-30 in col. 3). Ulrichts teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising the Fc fragment (e.g. see col. 17 and 18).
Further, Ulrichts teaches that the Fc fragment is a novel FcRn antagonist that binds specifically to FcRn receptor with increased affinity and reduced pH dependence relative to the native Fc region; and is also more efficacious FcRn antagonist in vivo than full length antibody comprising the Fc fragment, and thereby more advantageous as a replacement of IVIG for treatments for antibody-mediated disorders such as autoimmune disorders (e.g. see col. 2).
The reference teachings differ from the instant invention by not including amino acid substitution M428L.
However, it was well-known in the art that M428L substitution in the Fc region of human IgG is beneficial in increase the Fc’s affinity for FcRn. For example, Hinton et al. teach M428L substitution in the Fc region of human IgG shows increased binding of the Fc to FcRn (e.g. see SEQ ID NO:48 in Table 1, lines 20-26 in col. 35).
It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Ulrichts and Hinton to add M428L disclosed in Hinton to the Fc variant consisting M252Y/S254T/T256E/H433K/N434Y disclosed in Ulrichts for a Fc variant having M252Y/S254T/T256E/H433K/N434Y plus M428L. An ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, and have a reasonable expectation of success, because Ulrichts teaches that an Fc fragment with amino acid substitutions identified above could enhance its affinity to FcRn and be used an FcRn antagonist for treatment of antibody-mediated disorders, and Hinton teach that M428L substitution also have the same feature of enhanced binding to FcRn as the substitutions disclosed in Ulritchs.
Thus, combining these amino acid substitutions in the Fc region for an Fc variant with enhanced binding to FcRn following the well-known recombinant methodologies taught by both Ulrichts and Hinton would be well within the skill of an ordinary artisan. Such Fc variant would be expected to be advantageous as a replacement for IVIG for treating antibody-mediated disease.
Given that the combined teachings of Ulrichts and Hinton would have yielded the same Fc polypeptide comprising the identical amino acid substitutions known to enhance the FcRn binding, the prior art Fc polypeptide would inherently/intrinsically have the same functions as the instantly recited Fc polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:3 including binds to FcRn with a KD of less than or equal to 1x10-8 M at pH 6.0 as measured by surface plasmon resonance (SPR) as recited in instant claims 6, 12, 13, and 18.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
Applicant argues Ulrichts teaches an FcRn antagonist comprising a variant Fc region that binds FcRn with increased affinity and reduced pH dependence in order to inhibit IgG recycling and Hinton teaches Fc variant M428L for increased IgG recycling and extend serum half-life. Thus, an ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the two references directing to fundamentally different and opposing biological objectives. Applicant further argues that there is no expectation of success to combine the two references because there is no expectation that introducing M428L would further improving FcRn antagonistic function.
Applicant states:
PNG
media_image1.png
276
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that combining M428L with M252Y/S254T/T256E/H433K/N434F shows only 9% improvement in human FcRn binding affinity at pH 6.0 but achieved a greater than 2-fold improvement in IgG blocking potency as shown in Tables 1 and 2 in the instant specification and the combination also did not compromise the stability of the Fc polypeptide as shown in Table 5 in the instant specification as-filed. Applicant asserts that these features are unexpected and predictable from the combination.
As such, applicant asserts that the rejection should be withdrawn.
This is not found persuasive for following reasons:
In contrast to applicant’s arguments that the two references teach opposite biological objectives, note that both Ulrichts and Hinton teach the same mechanism: mutations in the Fc region for enhanced FcRn binding.
While the Fc variants may have two uses -- blocking FcRn and enhancing serum half-life, based on the same mechanism (enhanced FcRn binding) does not diminish the fact that it was known in the art that amino acid substitutions M428L and M252Y/S254T/T256E/H433K/N434Y are known and disclosed by Hinton and Ulrichts, respectively, to improve the Fc’s binding to FcRn.
The obviousness inquiry does not ask "whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole." In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) (stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"). Rather, in a case such as this where each of the elements of the claim are known to the art, the obviousness inquiry requires a finding that the combination of known elements was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art.
Here, Ulrichts teaches the elements of the instantly claimed SEQ ID NO:3 (an Fc variant) for enhanced binding to FcRn with the exception that Ulrichts does not teach M428L substitution. This deficiency in Ulrichts is supplemented by Hinton which teach single amino acid substitution M428L in the Fc region of human IgG1 also enhanced binding to FcRn. As such, one of ordinary skill would be motivated modify Ulrichts in view of Hinton because the modifications would be expected to further enhance the Fc’s binding to FcRn, a feature useful in blocking FcRn to prevent it from binding to pathogenic IgG when in the form of Fc or enhancing serum half-life of IgG antibody when Fc is present in IgG. All that is required is a reasonable expectation of success, not absolute predictability of success. See In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,903 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In addition, as the properties of a compound cannot be separated from the compound, see In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381,391 (CCPA 1963) (“a compound and all its properties are inseparable), the prior art Fc would inherently/intrinsically have the same properties as the instantly claimed Fc polypeptide, e.g. binding to human FcRn at pH 6.0 with an IC50 value less than 2nM as recited in instant claims 5, 6, 12, and 18.
As such, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive.
8. Claims 4, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrichts (US 10,316,073) in view of Hinton (US 7,217,798) as applied to claims 1-3, 7, and 8 above, and further in view of van Faassen (FASEB 2020; 34:8155-8171).
The teachings of Ulrichts and Hinton have been discussed above.
The reference teachings differ from the instant invention by not describing an HAS binding domain comprising a VHH.
van Faassen teaches that prolonged serum half-life is required for the efficacy of most protein therapeutics and one strategy for doing so is to incorporating a binding moiety that recognizes serum albumin (e.g. see Abstract). van Faassen further teaches a humanized camelid VHH that specifically binds human serum albumin (HSA) (e.g. see 2.6 in page 8158). van Faassen teaches that the humanized anti-HSA VHHs maintained in vivo half-life extension capabilities and represent new tools for extending protein therapeutic half-life (e.g. see Abstract and left col. in page 8169).
It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to conjugate the well-known HSA binding VHHs disclosed in van Faassen to the therapeutic Fc fragment disclosed in Ulrichts and Hinton. An ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, and have a reasonable expectation of success, because the the combination of of Ulrichts and Hinton teach that the Fc fragment is a novel FcRn antagonist more efficacious FcRn antagonist in vivo than full length antibody comprising the Fc fragment, and thereby more advantageous as a replacement of IVIG for treatments for antibody-mediated disorders such as autoimmune disorders, van Faassen made available a humanized anti-HSA VHH that can be incorporated into therapeutics to increase its serum half-life.
As such, conjugate the therapeutic Fc with the readily available anti-HSA VHH would be well within the skill of an ordinary artisan to increase the serum half-life of the therapeutic Fc fragment.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments and the Examiner’s rebuttals regarding the teachings of Ulrichts and Hinton are essentially the same as discussed above. Applicant further argues that Van Fassen teaches extending half-life of albumin but not FcRn antagonists capable of IgG recycling inhibition. As such, applicant asserts that the rejection should be withdrawn.
This is not found persuasive for following reasons:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, contrary to applicant’s assertion that the Van Faassen does not teach extending half-life of FcRn antagonists, note that it was well-known in the art that prolonged serum half-life is required for the efficacy of most protein therapeutics and one strategy for doing so is to incorporating a binding moiety that recognizes serum albumin such as anti-HSA VHH as disclosed by Van Faasen. Given that the combined teachings of the prior art Ulrichts and Hinton would lead an ordinary skill in the art to the Fc variant having identical amino acid sequence as the instantly claimed SEQ ID NO:3 as a replacement for IVIG for treatment of antibody-mediated autoimmune disease, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate VHH to the Fc variant to increase its serum half-life.
As such, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuaive.
9. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
10. Claims 1, 5, and 6 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending USSN 18/917,838 (reference application) for the reasons of record.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both instant claims and the claim in the reference applications are drawn to the same Fc fragment comprising identical amino acid sequences (e.g. see sequence alignment below, Qy: instant SEQ ID NO:3, Db: prior art SEQ ID NO:2).
US-18-917-838-52
Sequence 52, US/18917838
Publication No. US20250152704A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: PARAGON THERAPEUTICS, INC. (en)
TITLE OF INVENTION: FCRN ANTAGONISTS WITH IMPROVED HALF-LIFE AND METHODS OF USE (en)
FILE REFERENCE: VRD-017US1
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/18/917,838
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2024-10-16
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 84
SEQ ID NO 52
LENGTH: 346
TYPE: PRT
FEATURE:
NAME/KEY: source
LOCATION: 1..346
QUALIFIERS: mol_type = protein
organism = synthetic construct
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1227; Length 346;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 226; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 DKTHTCPPCPAPELLGGPSVFLFPPKPKDTLYITREPEVTCVVVDVSHEDPEVKFNWYVD 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 DKTHTCPPCPAPELLGGPSVFLFPPKPKDTLYITREPEVTCVVVDVSHEDPEVKFNWYVD 60
Qy 61 GVEVHNAKTKPREEQYNSTYRVVSVLTVLHQDWLNGKEYKCKVSNKALPAPIEKTISKAK 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 GVEVHNAKTKPREEQYNSTYRVVSVLTVLHQDWLNGKEYKCKVSNKALPAPIEKTISKAK 120
Qy 121 GQPREPQVYTLPPSRDELTKNQVSLTCLVKGFYPSDIAVEWESNGQPENNYKTTPPVLDS 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 GQPREPQVYTLPPSRDELTKNQVSLTCLVKGFYPSDIAVEWESNGQPENNYKTTPPVLDS 180
Qy 181 DGSFFLYSKLTVDKSRWQQGNVFSCSVLHEALKFHYTQKSLSLSPG 226
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 DGSFFLYSKLTVDKSRWQQGNVFSCSVLHEALKFHYTQKSLSLSPG 226
The Fc fusion molecule comprising SEQ ID NO:2 (identical to the instant SEQ ID NO:3) would have the same functions as recited in claims 5 and 6, and thus anticipate the instant claims drawn to an Fc fragment comprises an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:3.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
11. Claims 1-4 and 7-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending USSN 18/917,838 (reference application) in view of Ulrichts (US 10,316,073) and van Faassen (FASEB 2020; 34:8155-8171).
Instant claims 1-4 and 7 are drawn to an Fc fragment comprising SEQ ID NO:3, fused to a half-life extension domain including an HSA binding domain.
Claim 10 in the reference application is drawn to an Fc fusion molecule comprising SEQ ID NO:2 (identical to instant SEQ ID NO:3).
The reference teachings differ from the instant invention by not reciting fusion to HSA binding domain, and a pharmaceutical composition.
The teachings of Ulrichts and van Faassen have been discussed above.
It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ulrichts (including pharmaceutical composition) and van Faassen (anti-HSA VHH conjugate to protein therapeutics) to conjugate the Fc fusion protein comprising SEQ ID NO:2 to a serum half-life extending molecules such as the humanized anti-HSA VHH disclosed in van Faassen to the extend the half-life of the SEQ ID NO:2 in the copending application. It would also be obvious to formulate the SEQ ID NO:2 in the copending application into a pharmaceutical composition as disclosed by Ulrichts for in vivo applications. Therefore, the claim 10 in the copending application would render the instant claims obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
Applicant cites MPEP 804(I0(B)(b)(i) and argues that the ‘838 application has a later patent term filing date than the instant application. As such, applicant asserts that the rejection should be withdrawn when the provisional nonstattutory double patenting rejections are the only rejections remaining.
This is not found persuasive because the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections are not the only rejections remaining (see rejection under 35 USC 103 set forth above). As such, the rejections are maintained for the reasons of record.
12. No claim is allowed.
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN DAHLE whose telephone number is (571)272-8142. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30am-4:00pm.
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, Misook Yu can be reached at 571-272-0839. 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.
/CHUN W DAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1641
Prosecution Insights