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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-7 and 9-32 are pending in the application, claims 27-32 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 8 has been cancelled.
Amendments to the specification and the claims 1-3, 7, 10-12, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 23-25, filed on 13 October 2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Examiner’s Notes
With Regards to Claim 12: Instant claim 12 recites the limitation --comprising, or consisting essentially of-- in line 2. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation of "comprising".
Drawings
The drawings were received on 13 October 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 13 October 2025, regarding the objections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of applicants' arguments and amendments to the specification and the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 13 October 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 13 October 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 13 October 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record over McCarthy in view of Fishman and over McCarthy in view of Fishman and Brumlik, have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicants argue that McCarthy and Fishman either alone or in combination fail to disclose that said pores have an average diameter of at least 0.05 millimeters. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fishman discloses a structural device comprising a conformable sheet of interconnecting polygonal links that form a miniature and micro-scale conformable chain mail mesh, wherein the interconnecting links comprise planar surfaces that form the first and second outer surfaces, respectively, and wherein the interconnecting links are made from biocompatible or bioresorbable plastic, metal, or ceramic (figures 1 to 6, [0006] of Fishman), that the interconnecting links can be square shaped ([0008] and [0011] of Fishman), and that each of the interconnecting links can have an interior distance of 2.8 mm, an outside distance of 4.40 mm, and a center-to-center link spacing of 4.8 mm ([0069] of Fishman); wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have calculated the minimum opening diameter in the middle link, when connected to four other links at each corner, to be about 1.20 mm [=(2.80 mm)-(4.40 mm - 2.80 mm)]; which anticipates the claimed range of --at least 0.05 millimeters--. See MPEP §2131.03(I). (In the instant case, since the interconnected links can have less than four other links connected thereto, the minimum opening diameter can be greater than 1.20 mm; which would result in some "average diameter" of greater than 1.20 mm, which would still anticipate the claimed range.)
Therefore, in light of applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record over McCarthy in view of Fishman and over McCarthy in view of Fishman and Brumlik are still valid.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-22, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With Regards to Claims 6 and 7: Instant claim 6 recites the limitation --said sheet comprises interconnected, vertically aligned, partitions-- in lines 1 to 2. Instant claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites --said sheet comprising interconnected, vertically aligned, partitions-- in lines 3 to 4. In the instant case, claim 6 presents the same limitations as already presented in claim 1, and is therefore deemed to be of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 6, is rejected for the same reasons as above.
With Regards to Claims 9 and 10: Instant claim 9 recites the limitation --said sheet is produced from a light polymerizable resin by an additive manufacturing process-- in lines 1 to 2. Instant claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, recites --said sheet is comprised of, consists of, or consists essentially of a flexible or elastic polymer-- in lines 9 to 8. In the instant case, claim 9 as written attempts to redefine the sheet to be formed of a photopolymerized resin, which is not recited to be either flexible or elastic, and is not recited to be the same "flexible or elastic polymer" that the sheet is comprised, consists of, or consists essentially of. Therefore, the claim is deemed to be of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10, which depends from claim 9, is rejected for the same reasons as above.
With Regards to Claims 12-24: Instant claim 12 recites the limitation --the adhesive barrier is prepared by photopolymerization of a resin-- in lines 1 to 2. Instant claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, recites --an adhesion barrier comprising, consisting of, or consisting essentially of a sheet [...], and wherein said sheet is comprised of, consists of, or consists essentially of a flexible or elastic polymer-- in lines 1 to 8. In the instant case, claim 12 as written attempts to redefine the adhesion barrier to be formed of a photopolymerized resin, which is not recited to be either flexible or elastic, and is not recited to be the same "flexible or elastic polymer" that the adhesive barrier is comprised, consists of, or consists essentially of. Therefore, the claim is deemed to be of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 13-24, which depend from claim 12, are rejected for the same reasons as above.
With Regards to Claim 25: Instant claim 25 recites the limitation --the adhesive barrier is prepared by photopolymerization of a resin-- in lines 1 to 2. Instant claim 1, from which claim 25 depends, recites --an adhesion barrier comprising, consisting of, or consisting essentially of a sheet [...], and wherein said sheet is comprised of, consists of, or consists essentially of a flexible or elastic polymer-- in lines 1 to 8. In the instant case, claim 25 as written attempts to redefine the adhesion barrier to be formed of a photopolymerized resin, which is not recited to be either flexible or elastic, and is not recited to be the same "flexible or elastic polymer" that the adhesive barrier is comprised, consists of, or consists essentially of. Therefore, the claim is deemed to be of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With Regards to Claim 26: Instant claim 26 recites the limitation --the adhesive barrier is produced by photopolymerization of a resin in the shape of the adhesion barrier-- in lines 1 to 2. Instant claim 1, from which claim 26 depends, recites --an adhesion barrier comprising, consisting of, or consisting essentially of a sheet [...], and wherein said sheet is comprised of, consists of, or consists essentially of a flexible or elastic polymer-- in lines 1 to 8. In the instant case, claim 26 as written attempts to redefine the adhesion barrier to be formed of a photopolymerized resin, which is not recited to be either flexible or elastic, and is not recited to be the same "flexible or elastic polymer" that the adhesive barrier is comprised, consists of, or consists essentially of. Therefore, the claim is deemed to be of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jonnes (US 4,136,222 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Jonnes teaches a thermal insulating sheet material (ref. #10; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "adhesion barrier") comprising a separator layer (ref. #14; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "sheet") having a top surface and a bottom surface, the separator layer comprising an open array of resiliently flexible, supple, and compressible polymeric foam segments, forming a network comprise a connected network of segments, wherein the average width of the polymeric foam segments is no more than about 5 millimeters, and the maximum span across an open area of the separator layer is no more than about 5 centimeters (figure 1, [Col. 1: li. 29-44], [Col. 4: li. 36-41 and 47-52], and [Col. 4: li. 67 to Col. 5: li. 4] of Jonnes). (Note: In the instant case, because the separator layer is capable of flexing and being compressed ([Col. 1: li. 29-44] and [Col. 2: li. 19-25] of Jonnes), the polymeric foam is considered to meet the claimed limitation of --a flexible or elastic polymer--.) Jonnes also teaches that the separator layer has a thickness of between about one-fourth and one-and-one-half centimeters (2.5 to 15 mm) ([Col. 1: li. 29-33] of Jonnes); which anticipates the claimed range of --at least 1 millimeter--. See MPEP §2131.03(I). Furthermore, Jonnes teaches that the sheet has a length (X) dimension, a width (Y) dimension, and a depth (or vertical) (Z) dimension, said length and width dimensions together comprising lateral dimensions (figure 1 of Jonnes). (NOTE: The "adhesion barrier" of the preamble is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. See MPEP §2111.02.)
Jonnes teaches the claimed sheet, but does not explicitly recite --said sheet is stiffer in said vertical dimension than in said lateral dimensions--. However, the separator layer of Jonnes has the same structure and same material as applicants invention (i.e., a sheet having a top surface and a bottom surface, said sheet comprising interconnected, vertically aligned, partitions, said partitions forming pores, said pores extending from said top surface through said bottom surface, wherein said sheet is comprised of a flexible or elastic polymer, wherein said sheet has a thickness of at least 1 millimeter, and wherein: said sheet has a length (X) dimension, a width (Y) dimension, and a depth (or vertical) (Z) dimension, said length and width dimensions together comprising lateral dimensions; see (figure 1, [Col. 1: li. 29-44], [Col. 2: li. 19-25], [Col. 4: li. 36-41 and 47-52], and [Col. 4: li. 67 to Col. 5: li. 4]) of Jonnes and ([Pg. 2: paragraphs 1-5]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the separator layer of Jonnes inherently possesses a stiffness that is greater in said vertical dimension than in said lateral dimensions. See MPEP §2112. (Note: The instant specification is silent with regards to how "stiffness" is regarded (i.e., compression, tension, stress, strain). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner to give "stiffness" the broadest reasonable interpretation of resistance to change.)
Regarding Claim 6: Jonnes teaches that said sheet comprises interconnected, vertically aligned, partitions (figure 1, [Col. 1: li. 19-44] and [Col. 3: li. 15-24] of Jonnes).
Regarding Claim 7: Jonnes teaches that said partitions are curved, planar, or a combination thereof when viewed above the top surface or below the bottom surface (figure 1 of Jonnes).
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Landi et al. (US 5,039,567 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Landi teaches a panel (ref. #10) including a honeycomb-like core made of bonded together and expanded strips (ref. #12) of plastic material, each cell shares a double thickness wall segment, the sheets being made of 0.012 inch (0.3048 mm) thick thermoplastic polyurethane cut in 7 inch by 19 inch rectangular pieces (figures 1, 6, 7, and [Col. 3: li. 6-16 and 33-38] of Landi); wherein the resulting honeycomb-like core would have a thickness of 7 inches (177.8 mm) which anticipates the claimed range of --at least 1 millimeter--. See MPEP §2131.03(I). Landi also teaches that the pane is flexible ([Col. 1: li. 10-13] of Landi). (In the instant case, since the expanded strips are capable of being expanded into the honeycomb configuration (figures 6 to 7 and [Col. 4: li. 52-55] of Landi), the thermoplastic polyurethane is considered to be a flexible or elastic polymer as claimed.)
Landi teaches the claimed sheet, but does not explicitly recite --said sheet is stiffer in said vertical dimension than in said lateral dimensions--. However, the separator layer of Landi has the same structure and same material as applicants invention (i.e., a sheet having a top surface and a bottom surface, said sheet comprising interconnected, vertically aligned, partitions, said partitions forming pores, said pores extending from said top surface through said bottom surface, wherein said sheet is comprised of a flexible or elastic polymer, wherein said sheet has a thickness of at least 1 millimeter, and wherein: said sheet has a length (X) dimension, a width (Y) dimension, and a depth (or vertical) (Z) dimension, said length and width dimensions together comprising lateral dimensions; see (figures 1, 6, 7, and [Col. 3: li. 6-16 and 33-38]) of Landi and ([Pg. 2: paragraphs 1-5]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the separator layer of Landi inherently possesses a stiffness that is greater in said vertical dimension than in said lateral dimensions. See MPEP §2112. (Note: The instant specification is silent with regards to how "stiffness" is regarded (i.e., compression, tension, stress, strain). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner to give "stiffness" the broadest reasonable interpretation of resistance to change.)
Regarding Claim 2: Landi teaches that the partitions have an average thickness of 0.024 inches [=2*(0.012 inches)] (0.6096 mm) ([Col. 3: li. 6-16 and 33-38] of Landi); which anticipates the claimed range of --an average thickness of 0.1 millimeters to 2 millimeters--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 6: Landi teaches that said sheet comprises interconnected, vertically aligned, partitions (figures 1, 6, 7, and [Col. 3: li. 6-16] of Landi).
Regarding Claim 7: Landi teaches that said partitions are curved, planar, or a combination thereof when viewed above the top surface or below the bottom surface (figures 7A to 7C of Landi).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonnes (US 4,136,222 A) as applied to claim 1 above.
Jonnes is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 2: Jonnes discloses that the average thickness ("average width") of the partitions is no more than about 5 millimeters, and said pores have a maximum diameter of no more than about 5 centimeters (50 mm) ([Col. 1: li. 29-38] and [Col. 4: li. 36-41] of Jonnes); which overlaps the presently claimed ranges of --an average diameter of 0.05 millimeters to 2 millimeters-- and --an average thickness of 0.1 millimeters to 2 millimeters--. Jonnes differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Jonnes, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. (In the instant case, for the range of the pore diameter, there would exist some average diameter within the maximum diameter of the pores.)
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al. (US 2009/0018479 A1) in view of Fishman et al. (CA 2962152 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: McCarthy discloses a relatively absorbable tissue dressing assembly (ref. #10) comprising a relatively thin and supple tissue dressing matrix (ref. #12) and a backing layer (ref. #14; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "adhesion barrier") which overlays one surface of the tissue dressing matrix, wherein said backing layer includes a flexible absorbable polymer film or mesh backing layer that provides an anti-adhesion barrier, the backing layer can be made of biocompatible elastomers and can be a mesh or a woven material (figures 1 to 2, [0045], and [0056]-[0060] of McCarthy). Specifically, McCarthy provides for --an adhesion barrier comprising a sheet having a top surface and a bottom surface, and wherein said sheet is comprised of a flexible or elastic polymer--.
McCarthy fails to disclose --said sheet comprising interconnected links, said links forming pores; wherein said pores have an average diameter of at least 0.05 millimeters--.
Fishman discloses a structural device comprising a conformable sheet of interconnecting polygonal links that form a miniature and micro-scale conformable chain mail mesh, wherein the interconnecting links comprise planar surfaces that form the first and second outer surfaces, respectively, and wherein the interconnecting links are made from biocompatible or bioresorbable plastic, metal, or ceramic (figures 1 to 6, [0006] of Fishman). Fishman also discloses that the interconnecting links can be square shaped, triangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, or pyramidal, and made via additive manufacturing ([0008] and [0011] of Fishman). It is also disclosed by Fishman that each of the interconnecting links can have an interior distance of 2.8 mm, an outside distance of 4.40 mm, and a center-to-center link spacing of 4.8 mm ([0069] of Fishman); wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have calculated the minimum opening diameter in the middle link, when connected to four other links at each corner, to be about 1.20 mm [=(2.80 mm)-(4.40 mm - 2.80 mm)]; which anticipates the claimed range of --at least 0.05 millimeters--. See MPEP §2131.03(I). (In the instant case, since the interconnected links can have less than four other links connected thereto, the minimum opening diameter can be greater than 1.20 mm; which would result in some "average diameter" of greater than 1.20 mm, which would still anticipate the claimed range.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the structural device of Fishman as the sheet of the adhesive barrier disclosed by McCarthy in order to have --said sheet comprising interconnected links, said links forming pores--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the structural device of Fishman as the sheet of the adhesive barrier disclosed by McCarthy, from the stand-point of having a sheet with high degree of conformability ([0002] and [0006] of Fishman).
McCarthy in view of Fishman discloses that said sheet has a length (X) dimension, a width (Y) dimension, and a depth (or vertical) (Z) dimension, said length and width dimensions together comprising lateral dimensions (figures 1 to 2 and [0057]-[0059] of McCarthy; figures 1 to 6, [0006] of Fishman), but does not explicitly recite --said sheet is stiffer in said vertical dimension than in said lateral dimensions--. However, Fishman teaches a sheet having the same structure as applicants' (i.e., a sheet having a top surface and a bottom surface, said sheet comprising interconnected links, said links forming pores, said pores extending from said top surface through said bottom surface; see (figures 1 to 6, [0006]) of Fishman and ([Pg. 2: li. 2-7, 16-17, and 25]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the sheet of Fishman inherently possesses a stiffness in said vertical direction greater than a stiffness in said lateral dimension. See MPEP §2112. (NOTE: The "adhesion barrier" of the preamble is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. See MPEP §2111.02.)
Regarding Claim 4: McCarthy in view of Fishman discloses that said links are rectangular, pentagonal, or hexagonal in shape (figures 1 to 6 and [0008] of Fishman).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al. (US 2009/0018479 A1) in view of Fishman et al. (CA 2962152 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Brumlik (US 2021/0178114 A1).
McCarthy in view of Fishman is relied upon as recited above.
Regarding Claim 5: McCarthy in view of Fishman fails to disclose --said links include at least one internal bridge configured to reduce lateral compacting of said links--.
Brumlik discloses a sheet of a chain mail mesh comprising a plurality interconnecting polygonal links defining a sheet (figures 1 to 4B, [0011], and [0012] of Brumlik). Brumlik also discloses that the interconnecting, polygonal links further include at least one lower transverse intermediate connector member disposed between and connected to the at least two lower horizontal connector members and at least one upper transverse intermediate connected member disposed between and connected to the at least two upper horizontal connector members (figures 4A to 4B, [0018], and [0158] of Brumlik).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the intermediate connector member of Brumlik with the links disclosed by McCarthy in view of Fishman in order to have --said links include at least one internal bridge configured to reduce lateral compacting of said links--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the intermediate connector member of Brumlik with the links disclosed by McCarthy in view of Fishman, from the stand-point of providing strength to the interconnecting polygonal links ([0018] of Brumlik).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Jonnes (US 4,136,222 A): Jonnes teaches --an adhesion barrier--, wherein Jonnes' adhesion barrier further comprises the structure --a thermal insulating sheet material (ref. #10) comprising a separator layer (ref. #14) having a top surface and a bottom surface, the separator layer comprising an open array of resiliently flexible, supple, and compressible polymeric foam segments, forming a network comprise a connected network of segments; wherein the average width of the polymeric foam segments is no more than about 5 millimeters; wherein the maximum span across an open area of the separator layer is no more than about 5 centimeters; and wherein the separator layer has a thickness of between about one-fourth and one-and-one-half centimeters-- (figure 1, [Col. 1: li. 29-44], [Col. 2: li. 19-25], [Col. 4: li. 36-41 and 47-52], and [Col. 4: li. 67 to Col. 5: li. 4] of Jonnes). However, Jonnes does not teach that --said flexible or elastic polymer comprises a bioresorbable polyester-- {instant claim 11}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Jonnes with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Jonnes in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
With regards to the closest prior art of record Landi et al. (US 5,039,567 A): Landi teaches --an adhesion barrier--, wherein Landi's adhesion barrier further comprises the structure --a panel (ref. #10) including a honeycomb-like core made of bonded together and expanded strips (ref. #12) of plastic material, each cell shares a double thickness wall segment, the sheets being made of 0.012 inch thick thermoplastic polyurethane cut in 7 inch by 19 inch rectangular pieces; and wherein the panel is flexible-- (figures 1, 6, 7, [Col. 1: li. 10-13], and [Col. 3: li. 6-16 and 33-38] of Landi). However, Landi does not teach that --said flexible or elastic polymer comprises a bioresorbable polyester-- {instant claim 11}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Landi with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Landi in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicants' 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Laperriere et al. (US 2022/0079280 A1) discloses additively-manufactured components having porous structures.
Erno et al. (US 2018/0299066 A1) discloses a shell unit cell structure.
Liu et al. (US 2025/0307495 A1) discloses additively manufactured periodic minimal surface structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781