DETAILED ACTION
The amendment submitted on August 13, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pend-ing in the application and are rejected for the reasons set forth below. No claim is allowed. The Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 has also been considered.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection, so the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn. Applicant’s submission filed on August 13, 2026 has been entered.
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 . 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.
Response to Arguments
The examiner agrees that US 2024/ 0197668 A1 by Millet does not specifically disclose treating cardiovascular disease. See applicant’s Remarks, submitted August 13, 2026, at pp. 8-13. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by this reference is therefore withdrawn.
The examiner also agrees that none of the reference Patents or co-pending Applications cited for double patenting specifically claims a method of treating cardiovascular disease. See applicant’s Remarks at pp. 13-16. These rejections are therefore withdrawn. Note, however, the new rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments, including the Declaration, submitted on August 13, 2026 have been fully considered.
Priority
This application is a continuation in part of prior-filed application no. 19/221,260, which, in turn, is a continuing application of several other prior-filed applications. A continuation-in-part application may include matter not disclosed in a prior-filed application. Only the claims of the continuation-in-part application that are disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the prior-filed application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application. If there is a continuous chain of copending nonprovisional applications, such as in the present situation, each copending application must disclose the claimed invention of the later-filed application in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in order for the later-filed application to be entitled to the benefit of the earliest filing date. To be entitled to the benefits provided by 35 U.S.C. 120, the invention disclosed in the previously filed application must be described therein in such a manner as to satisfy all the requirements of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.
If a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature that was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application but was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part appli-cation, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application. By way of further illustration, if the claims of a continuation-in-part application that are only entitled to the continuation-in-part filing date read on published or patented subject matter, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 would be proper. See MPEP1 211.05 (Sufficiency of Disclosure in Prior-Filed Application).
Claims 1-16 are drawn to a “method for treating … reduced heart function.” There is no written support within the meaning of § 112(a) in any prior-filed application for treating “reduced heart function.” Claims 1-16 are therefore not entitled to the benefit of any prior-filed applica-tions to which priority is claimed (see the “Domestic Applications for which benefit is claimed” in the Filing Receipt mailed on September 24, 2025).
Claims 17-20 are similarly directed to a “method for therapeutically or prophylactically treating a human with cardiovascular disease.” The examiner acknowledges that at least one of the prior-filed applications mentions “cardiovascular disease.” For example, see the section entitled “Related Technology” in the specification of Application No. 17/130,498, filed December 22, 2020, at p. 4, which states as follows (emphasis added):
The metabolism of ketone bodies is associated with several improvements to metabolic function, such as anticonvulsant effects, enhanced metabolism by the brain, neuroprotection, muscle sparing properties, improved cognitive and physical perfor-mance, and epigenetic effects (positive or beneficial gene expres-sions). Science-based improvements in efficiency of cellular metabolism, managed through ketone supplementation, can have beneficial impacts on physical, cognitive health, and psychological health, and a long-term impact on health with respect to the common avoidable diseases such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, and cancer.
This text appears in the section of the ‘498 Application that discusses background information related to that invention, and it is the only mention of “cardiovascular disease” anywhere in the ‘498 Application. This suggestion of “ketone supplementation” as a means to beneficially impact cardiovascular disease is not persuasive evidence that applicant was in actual possession of the subject matter of instant claims 17-20. See MPEP 2163.02 (Standard for Determining Compliance With the Written Description Requirement) for a discussion of “possession” of an invention as it related to written description under § 112(a). The examiner therefore concludes that claims 17-20 do not have written support in any of the claimed prior-filed applications.
Instead, all of the pending claims are only entitled to the actual filing date of this continuation-in-part application, namely, September 4, 2025. This is the critical date for assessing prior art, and anything that qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 as of SEPTEMBER 4, 2025 is citable against the instant claims.
New Grounds for Rejection Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to partic-ularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the inven-tion.
Claim 17 is drawn to a “method for … prophylactically treating a human with cardiovas-cular disease” (emphasis added). Applicant’s specification (p. 11) explains that “[p]rophylaxis means that regiment is undertaken to prevent a possible occurrence.” Furthermore, the search of the prior art reveals that “prophylaxis” is a term used in this technology area to refer to administration to a person without a particular disease in order to prevent its occurrence. It is not clear how prophylaxis in claims 17-20 could be performed on a person who actually has the disease in question.
Modified Grounds for Rejection 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 explained in MPEP 2141 et seq. They 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.
Claims 1-20, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0197668 A1 by Millet.
Millet (cited in the prior action) discloses a method of administering (para. 0048) to a human (para. 0038) a composition that comprises “optically pure (100%) S-beta-hydroxybutyrate or a non-racemic mixture of S-beta-hydroxybutyrate enriched with the S-enantiomer (i.e., more than 50% and less than 100% by enantiomeric equivalents of S-beta-hydroxybutyrate and less than 50% and more than 0% by enantiomeric equivalents of R-beta-hydroxybutyrate)” (para. 0049), which is the same composition referred to in claims 1 and 12. The “S-beta-hydroxybutyr-ate … can be provided in various forms, such as salts and/or esters and/or free acid form(s)” (para. 0055), which meets the limitations of claims 2, 13, and 18. “[T]he non-racemic mixture can include both salt and ester forms of S-beta-hydroxybutyrate” (para. 0062), which meets the limitations of claim 3. Millet also discloses “optically pure S-beta-hydroxybutyrate or non-racemic mixture enriched with S-beta-hydroxybutyrate, wherein the compositions contain from about 50.5% to 100% by enantiomeric equivalents of S-beta-hydroxybutyrate and from about 49.5% to 0% by enantiomeric equivalents of R-beta-hydroxybutyrate” (see abstract), which meets the limitations of claims 4 and 16. In some embodiments, “S-1,3-butanediol or non-racemic mixture enriched with the S-enantiomer” is also administered (para. 0068), which meets the limitations of claim 5. The reference also discloses administering short- and medium-chain triglycerides (para. 0045-46 and 0063-64) within the meaning of claims 6-7. The composition is provided in the form of a kit that contains a measuring device and a container, such as a carton or box (para. 0040-41), which meets the limitations of claims 10-11. Millet further discloses tablets, capsules, beverages, and so forth (para. 0056), which are within the meaning of claims 12 and 17.
The difference between the prior art and the claims at issue is that Millet does not specifically disclose identifying, diagnosing, or selecting a human with cardiovascular disease. Treatment of such a person, however, would have been prima facie obvious when the teachings of the reference are considered as a whole.
This is because Millet discloses that “metabolism of ketone bodies is associated with several beneficial effects” and that “ketone supplementation” results in “improvements in efficiency of cellular metabolism” with “beneficial impacts on physical … health, and a long-term impact on health with respect to common avoidable diseases such as … cardiovascular disease,” (para. 0006). Millet accomplished this ketone supplementation as outlined in the paragraph above. One would therefore have expected the therapy described in the reference to be useful in treating cardiovascular disease even though it is not specifically disclosed in the reference. In general, it is prima facie obvious to use an existing therapy, including the therapy outlined above, in accordance with its known pharmacological properties and thereby arrive at a readily predict-able outcome. See, e.g., MPEP 2144.07 (Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose).
The claim limitations that are drawn to a mechanism of action, referred to in claims 8-9, 14-15, and 19-20, would be inherent in the treatment outlined above. Mere recognition of such latent properties in the prior art “does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. … Granting a patent on the discovery of an unknown but inherent function … would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art.” The fact that applicant has evidently recognized other advantages that “would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” See MPEP 2145(II) (Prima Facie Obviousness Is Not Rebutted by Merely Recognizing Additional Advantages or Latent Properties Present But Not Recognized in the Prior Art). The cited reference teaches or suggests a method of treating the same disease (cardiovascular disease) using the same active ingredients (hydroxybutyrate), so it is a reasonable conclusion that the outcomes recited in claims 8-9, 14-15, and 19-20 would necessarily follow. See MPEP 2112.
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 possi-ble 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 accompa-nied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,245,243 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The ‘243 Patent (cited in the prior action) claims composition for administering ketone bodies and ketone body precursors to a subject, comprising a non-racemic mixture of S-beta-hydroxybutyrate and R-beta-hydroxy-butyrate, wherein the non-racemic mixture comprises from 52% to 85% by enantiomeric equiv-alents of the S-beta-hydroxybutyrate and 48% to 15% by enantiomeric equivalents of the R-beta-hydroxybutyrate. See claim 1 of the ‘243 Patent. The accompanying specification discloses that this composition is used in a method of administering to a human (col. 3, ll. 12-27 and col. 4, ll. 46-50). It is co-administered with S-1,3-butanediol (col. 6, ll. 60-67) and short- or medium-chain triglycerides (col. 7, ll. 15-40). It also discloses tablets, capsules, and food compositions (col. 6, ll. 42-49). As explained in detail above, the mechanism of action or therapeutic outcomes recited in the instant claims would therefore be inherent in the teaching of the reference, including the limitations of claims 8-9, 14-15, and 19-20, as explained in more detail above. The ‘243 Patent does not specifically claim a method of treating cardiovascular disease, but this subject matter would nevertheless have been prima facie obvious over the written description of the utility discussed in the Patent (see, e.g., col. 2, ll. 1-3). Note that it is proper for the examiner to consider the relevant disclosure of the written description of the Patent, not just the claims themselves, for the reasons discussed in MPEP 804(II)(B)(1) (Construing the Claim Using the Reference Patent or Application Disclosure). The examiner therefore concludes that the subject matter of the instant claims is prima facie obvious over the claims of the ‘243 Patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,596,128 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the ‘128 Patent (cited in the prior action) is directed to a method of administering a ketone body composition to a subject, the ketone body composition comprising a non-racemic mixture of S-beta-hydroxy-butyrate and R-beta-hydroxybutyrate that is enriched with the S-beta-hydroxybutyrate relative to the R-beta-hydroxybutyrate, wherein the non-racemic mixture comprises less than 100% by enantiomeric equivalents of the S-beta-hydroxybutyrate and greater than 0% by enantiomeric equivalents of the R-beta-hydroxybutyrate. Dependent claim 2 requires that the non-racemic mixture contains from 52% to 99% by enantiomeric equivalents of the S-beta-hydroxybutyrate and 48% to 1% by enantiomeric equivalents of the R-beta-hydroxybutyrate, which meets the limitations of instant claims 4 and 16. The ‘128 Patent also discloses using 1,3-butanediol (col. 6, ll. 60-67), as well as short- and medium-chain fatty acids (col. 7, ll. 17-57), which meets the limitations of instant claims 5-7. The ‘128 Patent also discloses tablets, capsules, and food compositions (col. 6, ll. 42-47). As explained above, the limitations of the instant claims that are drawn to a mechanism or action or therapeutic outcome are inherent in the subject matter of the ‘128 Patent. The instant claims are therefore prima facie obvious over the subject matter claimed in the ‘128 Patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,596,130 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the ‘130 Patent (cited in the prior action) is drawn to a composition for administering ketone bodies and/or ketone body precursors to a subject, the ketone body composition comprising a non-racemic mixture of S-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt and R-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt enriched with the S-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt relative to the R-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt, with the proviso that the S-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt is not calcium S-beta-hydroxybutyrate, wherein the non-racemic mixture comprises from less than 100% by enantiomeric equivalents of the S-beta-hydroxybutyr-ate salt and greater than 0% by enantiomeric equivalents of the R-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt. Dependent claim 2 requires that the non-racemic mixture contains from 52% to 99% by enantio-meric equivalents of the S-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt and 48% to 1% by enantiomeric equivalents of the R-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt. Claim 13 is drawn to a kit, and dependent claims 14-19 are drawn to cartons, boxes, measuring devices, short- and medium-chain triglycerides, butanediol, and so forth. As explained above, the subject matter of instant claims 8-9, 14-15, and 19-20 is inherent in the ‘130 Patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,185,518 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The ‘518 Patent (cited in the prior action) is a continuation in part of the ‘130 Patent discussed above. The instant claims are not patentably distinct from the invention claimed in the ‘518 Patent for substantially the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,944,598 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The ‘598 Patent (cited in the prior action) is a continuation in part of the ‘518 Patent, discussed above, and the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of the ‘598 Patent for substantially the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,734 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for substantially the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-22 of copending Application No. 18/105,030 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 17 of the ‘030 Application is drawn toa composition for use in making a beverage or food product comprising beta-hydroxybutyric acid that is pure S-beta-hydroxy-butyric acid or enriched with S-beta-hydroxybutyric acid relative to R-beta-hydroxybutyric acid so as to contain at least 60% by enantiomeric equivalents of S-beta-hydroxybutyric acid and no greater than 40% by enantiomeric equivalents of R-beta-hydroxybutyric acid; and a beta-hydroxybutyrate salt component that is pure S-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt or enriched with S-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt relative to R-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt so as to contain at least 60% by enantiomeric equivalents of S-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt and no greater than 40% by enanti-omeric equivalents of R-beta-hydroxybutyrate salt. The accompanying specification describes this composition as having utility in treating humans (see, e.g., pp. 17-18). As explained in detail above, the mechanism of action or therapeutic outcomes recited in the instant claims would therefore be inherent in the teaching of the reference. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/217,111 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 10 of the ‘111 Application is drawn to a method for exogenously increasing ketone body level in a subject, comprising administering an exogenous beta-hydroxybutyric acid that is enantiomerically pure S-beta-hydroxybutyric acid or a non-racemic mixture enriched with S-beta-hydroxybutyric acid that contains greater than 50% and less than 100% by enantiomeric equivalents of S-beta-hydroxybutyric acid and less than 50% and greater than 0% by enantio-meric equivalents of R-beta-hydroxybutyric acid. As explained in detail above, the limitations of the instant claims that relate to a mechanism of action are inherent in the method of the ‘111 Application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,533,331 B2 (provisionally cited in the prior action as Application No. 18/907,258). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the ‘331 Patent (cited in applicant’s IDS2) is directed to an aqueous beta-hydroxybutyric acid composition formulated as a nutritional supple-ment, or for addition to water, beverage, or food product, for ingestion by oral delivery to provide exogenous ketone bodies that exogenously increase blood ketone level in a mammal, the composition comprising: water; and 0.4% w/v to 55% w/v of exogenous beta-hydroxybutyric acid in monomeric form at least partially dissolved in the water, wherein the exogenous beta-hydroxy-butyric acid is enantiomerically pure S-beta- hydroxybutyric acid or a non-racemic mixture enriched with S-beta-hydroxybutyric acid relative to R-beta-hydroxybutyric acid so as to include at least 60% by enantiomeric equivalents of S- beta-hydroxybutyric acid and no more than 40% by enantiomeric equivalents of R-beta- hydroxybutyric acid. As explained in detail above, the limitations of the instant claims that relate to a mechanism of action are inherent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,514,841 B2 (provisionally cited in the prior action as Application No. 19/221,260). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for substantially the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, and 15 of copending Application No. 19/303,084 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for substantially the same reasons discussed above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,622,889 B2 (provisionally cited in the prior action as Application No. 19/315,079). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for substantially the same reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Theodore R. Howell whose telephone number is (571)270-5993. The exam-iner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00 am - 7:00 pm (Eastern Time). 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, Amy L. Clark can be reached at (571)272-1310. 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.
THEODORE R. HOWELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1628
/THEODORE R. HOWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628
September 9, 2026
1 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Latest Revision November 2024 [R-01.2024]
2 See the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 17, 2026.
Prosecution Insights