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
The amendments filed on 07/16/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application. The amendments overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues on page 9 that the device of Carson fails to meet the limitations of the claim because “Carson shows the slit and handle at different ends of the sleeve and that the tunneling instrument is inserted into the handle side”. It is the examiners position that this arrangement does not necessarily mean that the limitations of the claim are not met because FIG 2B shows the proximal end having the tunneling instrument inserted therein. Examiner notes that the claim limitations regarding a handle at a proximal end of a shaft are in regards to a tunneling instrument which is not positively recited.
Regarding claim 13, applicant argues on page 10 that “claim 13 is amended to discuss that the elongated tubular sleeve tapers from the proximal end to the distal end to a smaller diameter. This is not shown in either of Bright or Braga”. It is the examiners position that this limitation what addressed in previously presented claim 15 and that Braga teaches the tapering of the sleeve as recited in amended claim 13. Applicant has not provided arguments regarding claim 15 or further elaborated on why it is believed that Braga does not show the claimed limitation. Therefore, applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9-10 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s)6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in further view of Baronni to teach the newly recited limitation regarding the hole at the end of the slit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carson et al. (US 2005/0192604).
Regarding claim 1, Carson discloses an apparatus (Elements of FIG 1A) for subcutaneous delivery in tissue of a patient of a vascular arteriovenous graft including a cannulation chamber and having a proximal end and a distal end and a length extending along a longitudinal axis between the proximal end and the distal end (Examiner notes as written in the claim, the graft and its cannulation chamber are not a positively recited element of the claim), using a tunneling instrument (48) including an elongated shaft having a handle at a proximal end of the shaft and a removable tip at a distal end of the shaft for creating a pathway in the subcutaneous tissue (The tunneling instrument is not a positively recited element of the claim, therefore the specific limitations and intended use need not be disclosed by the prior art), the subcutaneous delivery apparatus comprising: an elongated tubular sleeve (42, [0069-0071, FIGs 1A-3D) having a length (FIG 1A shows the full length) and defining an interior lumen (The sleeve has a lumen which receives 48 therein. See lumen in cross section FIG 2A-2B), the sleeve having a proximal end (End closest to slit 44, FIG 1A-1B) configured to have the rigid tunneling instrument inserted into the proximal end (The proximal end of the lumen is at least sized and shaped to have the tunneling instrument such as 48 inserted therein, such as in FIG 2B), the sleeve adapted for being slidably positioned over at least a portion of the shaft of the tunneling instrument between the handle and the tip such that once the tunneling instrument has been advanced to a desired subcutaneous anatomical location the shaft is selectively removed from the sleeve while the sleeve remains positioned at the desired anatomical location (The sleeve is at least configured to be used in this manner because it is sized to receive a tunneling tool such as 48 and it can be left in place while the shaft of a tunneling tool is removed, as demonstrated in FIG 3C), the sleeve having a slit (44) extending along the length of the sleeve from the proximal end to a point intermediate the length of the sleeve (FIG 1B), wherein the lumen defined at the proximal end of the sleeve is adapted to receive the distal end of the graft and at least a portion of the cannulation chamber such that the proximal end portion of the sleeve progressively expands along the slit to provide an enlarged diameter for accommodating the cannulation chamber (FIGs 1B-2B show and end of the sleeve is capable of progressively expanding along the slit to form a widened diameter of the lumen. This widening is at least configured to receive a cannulation chamber of at least some graft in accordance with the claim. Therefore, it functional language is interpreted as being met by the device and structure of the claimed sleeve), and wherein application of a longitudinal force to the sleeve from the distal end of the sleeve is effective to cause the sleeve to move in a distal direction during removal of the sleeve from the tissue (The sleeve is at least structurally configured such that application of a force at its distal end would cause the sleeve to move in a corresponding direction) such that the graft is fixed in the sleeve by radial compression of the sleeve for pulling the graft and the sleeve through the tunnel for deploying the vascular graft (These limitations express and intended use of the device wherein the graft is not positively recited by the claim. The sleeve is understood to be at least capable of being used in this manner if a graft were situated within its lumen).
Regarding claim 2, Carson discloses the sleeve is adapted to receive substantially the entire length of the shaft between the handle and the tip (The sleeve comprises a length and a lumen which is at least configured to receive a shaft of a tunneling tube having an appropriate length and diameter).
Regarding claim 3, Carson discloses the sleeve is uniformly tapered from the proximal end to the distal such that distal end has a reduced diameter from the proximal end (See tapering in FIG 2B wherein the top end is interpreted as the proximal end).
Regarding claim 4, Carson discloses wherein the slit is linear (FIG 1B demonstrates the slit is linear).
Regarding claim 5, Carson discloses the sleeve comprises an enlarged diameter portion adjacent the proximal end (FIG 2B shows the enlarges diameter portion), the enlarged diameter portion of the sleeve adapted for receiving the cannulation chamber (This portion is at least configured to receive a cannulation chamber having an appropriately sized diameter).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright (US 2009/0299377) in view of Braga (US 2010/0063512), further in view of Barooni (US 2020/0405517).
Regarding claim 6, Bright discloses an apparatus (FIGs 2A-3) for subcutaneous implantation in tissue of a patient of a vascular arteriovenous graft including a cannulation chamber and having a proximal end and a distal end and a length extending along a longitudinal axis between the proximal end and the distal end (Examiner notes as written in the claim, the graft and its cannulation chamber are not a positively recited element of the claim), the subcutaneous implantation apparatus comprising: a rigid tunneling instrument (30, FIG 3) for creating a pathway in the subcutaneous tissue ([0085-0086], FIGs 4a-4e), the tunneling instrument including an elongated shaft (40) having a handle at a proximal end of the shaft (60 operates as a handle at one end of the shaft, FIGs 3-5h), and a removable tip (10, [0075-0076, 0082] discloses tip 10 is detachable via attachment means 14) at a distal end of the shaft (FIGs 2A and 3); and an elongated tubular sleeve (50, FIG 2B and 5a-5h) having a length (FIG 2B) and defining an interior lumen (51, [0083]), the sleeve configured for being slidably positioned over at least a portion of the shaft of the tunneling instrument between the handle and the tip ([0085], FIG 5a-5hh show 50 being slidable over 40),wherein once the tunneling instrument has been advanced to a desired subcutaneous anatomical location the shaft is configured to be selectively removed from the sleeve while the sleeve remains positioned at the anatomical location (The sleeve is at least configured to be used in this manner because it is sized to receive the tunneling tool and it can be left in place while the shaft of a tunneling tool is removed for example if tip 10 were disconnected and shaft 40 were retracted out of the lumen of 50), wherein the lumen is adapted to receive the distal end of the graft and at least a portion of the cannulation chamber via the proximal end of the sleeve (FIG 5c-5d show sleeve 50 connected to graft 20 at a connection tip 10), and wherein application of a longitudinal force to the sleeve from the distal end of the sleeve is effective to cause the sleeve to move in a distal direction for removal of the sleeve from the tissue and pulling the arteriovenous graft and the sleeve through the tunnel deploying the vascular graft (FIGs 5c-5d show that pulling or pushing 50 results in movement of graft 20 due to the mechanically containing connection at 10 therebetween, [0087]).
Bright is silent regarding the specifics of how the end of graft 20 is connected to the end of sleeve 50 at the connection 10. Specifically, is fails to disclose the sleeve having a slit extending along the length of the sleeve from the proximal end to a point intermediate the length of the sleeve and wherein the lumen of the sleeve receives the distal end of the graft such that such that the proximal end portion of the sleeve progressively expands along the slit to provide an enlarged diameter for accommodating the cannulation chamber and that the arteriovenous graft is fixed in the sleeve by radial compression of the tissue around the sleeve.
However, Braga discloses in the same field of endeavor of releasable connection between two tubular elements, a connection comprising a sleeve (1200, FIG 7A) having a slit (1206, [0066-0068]) extending along the length of the sleeve from the proximal end to a point intermediate the length of the sleeve (FIG 7A shows the slit extending form a proximal end to a point along the sleeve i.e. not the entire length of the sleeve) and wherein the lumen of the sleeve receives the distal end of the graft (wherein 1300 represents an equivalent structure to the graft. [0066] discloses Longitudinal lumen 1202 is dimensioned to receive elongate segment 1304 of the connector 1300) such that such that the proximal end portion of the sleeve progressively expands along the slit to provide an enlarged diameter for accommodating the graft ([0066] discloses Slits 1206 allow the second longitudinal end 1204 to slightly expand while a clinician inserts elongate segment 1304 of connector 1300 through longitudinal lumen 1202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the connection between the sleeve and the graft of Bright to include the sleeve having a longitudinal slit and the graft being insertable therein to form a friction fit, as taught by Braga, for the purpose of utilizing a releasable connection means commonly known in the art for securing two tubular items in a manner which would not significantly increase the profile of the elements such that trauma to the surrounding tissue is minimized. The device as modified is at least configured such that the graft can be fixed in the sleeve by radial compression of the tissue around the sleeve because a radial compressive force would further enhance the connection.
The device as modified by Braga is further silent regarding the sleeve having a hole positioned at an end of the slit configured to limit tearing of the sleeve.
However, Barooni teaches a splittable sleeve (106) having a slit (105, FIG 2A, [0206]) having a hole (232) positioned at an end of the slit (FIG 2A) configured to limit tearing of the sleeve ([0206] discloses the hole “can serve as a stress relief or measure against sidewall crack formation at the end of the helical cut 115”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sleeve to have a hole positioned at an end of the slit configured to limit tearing of the sleeve, as taught by Barooni, for the purpose of providing a stress relief a the end of the slit thereby preventing continues splitting past the desired end of the slit ([Barooni: [0206]).
Regarding claim 7, Bright/Braga/Barooni disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 6. Bright further discloses the sleeve is configured to receive substantially the entire length of the shaft between the handle and the tip (FIGs 2A-3 show sleeve 50 has a lumen sized to receive the entire length of shaft 40 as the shaft is translated through the sleeve. Examiner notes the claim does not require the sleeve to have a length which surrounds the entire length of the shaft, only that it be configured to receive the length of the shaft).
Regarding claim 8, Bright/Braga/Barooni disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 6. The device as modified by Braga further discloses the sleeve is uniformly tapered from the proximal end to the distal such that distal end has a reduced diameter from the proximal end (When the opening at the proximal end is expanded to receive the graft therein, as described in [0066], there is a taper along the sleeve wherein the distal end has a reduced diameter from the proximal end).
Regarding claim 9, Bright/Braga/Barooni disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 6. The device as modified by Braga further discloses the slit is linear (Braga FIGs 7A-7B).
Regarding claim 10, Bright/Braga/Barooni disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 6. The device as modified further discloses the sleeve comprises an enlarged diameter portion adjacent the proximal end, the enlarged diameter portion adapted for receiving the cannulation chamber (The claim does not specify what the portion has an enlarged diameter relative to. The proximal end of the sleeve has a diameter that is enlarged at least relative to the end of the graft being inserted therein, in order to receive the graft/cannulation chamber).
Regarding claim 11, Bright/Braga/Barooni disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 6. Bright further discloses the sleeve comprises a terminal wall at the proximal end (Either wall end at 52 shown in FIG 2B), the wall having an axial opening (Hole passing therethrough, FIG 2B) for receiving the tip of the tunneling instrument for connection of the sleeve to the tunneling instrument (The tunneling tool is passed through an axial opening at the end of the sleeve, FIG 3).
Claim(s) 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright (US 2009/0299377) in view of Braga (US 2010/0063512).
Regarding claim 13, Bright discloses an apparatus (FIGs 2A-3) for subcutaneous delivery of a medical device in a patient, the subcutaneous delivery device comprising: a rigid tunneling instrument (30, FIG 3) for creating a pathway in the subcutaneous tissue ([0085-0086], FIGs 4a-4e), the tunneling instrument including an elongated shaft (40) having a handle at a proximal end of the shaft (60 operates as a handle at one end of the shaft, FIGs 3-5h), and a removable tip (10, [0075-0076, 0082] discloses tip 10 is detachable via attachment means 14) at a distal end of the shaft (FIGs 2A and 3); a vascular arteriovenous graft (20, [0077]. [0002] discloses an AV graft) including a cannulation chamber (lumen) and having a proximal end and a distal end (FIGs 5d-5h) and a length extending along a longitudinal axis between the proximal end and the distal end (See length of the graft in FIGs 5d-5h); and an elongated tubular sleeve (50, FIG 2B and 5a-5h) having a length (FIG 2B) and defining an interior lumen (51, [0083]), the sleeve configured for being slidably positioned over at least a portion of the shaft of the tunneling instrument between the handle and the tip ([0085], FIG 5a-5h show 50 being slidable over 40),wherein once the tunneling instrument has been advanced to a desired subcutaneous anatomical location the shaft is configured to be selectively removed from the sleeve while the sleeve remains positioned at the anatomical location (The sleeve is at least configured to be used in this manner because it is sized to receive the tunneling tool and it can be left in place while the shaft of a tunneling tool is removed for example if tip 10 were disconnected and shaft 40 were retracted out of the lumen of 50), wherein the lumen is configured to receive the distal end of the graft and at least a portion of the cannulation chamber via the proximal end of the sleeve (FIG 5c-5d show sleeve 50 connected to graft 20 at a connection tip 10), and wherein application of a longitudinal force to the sleeve from the distal end of the sleeve is effective to cause the sleeve to move in a distal direction for removal of the sleeve from the tissue and pulling the arteriovenous graft and the sleeve through the tunnel deploying the vascular graft (FIGs 5c-5d show that pulling or pushing 50 results in movement of graft 20 due to the mechanically containing connection at 10 therebetween, [0087]).
Bright is silent regarding the specifics of how the end of graft 20 is connected to the end of sleeve 50 at the connection 10. Specifically, is fails to disclose the sleeve having a slit extending along the length of the sleeve from the proximal end to a point intermediate the length of the sleeve, the elongated tubular sleeve tapering from the proximal end to the distal end to a smaller diameter and wherein the lumen of the sleeve receives the distal end of the graft such that such that the proximal end portion of the sleeve progressively expands along the slit to provide an enlarged diameter for accommodating the cannulation chamber and that the arteriovenous graft is fixed in the sleeve by radial compression of the tissue around the sleeve.
However, Braga discloses in the same field of endeavor of releasable connection between two tubular elements, a connection comprising a sleeve (1200, FIG 7A) having a slit (1206, [0066-0068]) extending along the length of the sleeve from the proximal end to a point intermediate the length of the sleeve (FIG 7A shows the slit extending form a proximal end to a point along the sleeve i.e. not the entire length of the sleeve), the elongated tubular sleeve tapering from the proximal end to the distal end to a smaller diameter (When the opening at the proximal end is expanded to receive the graft therein, as described in [0066], there is a taper along the sleeve wherein the distal end has a reduced diameter from the proximal end) and wherein the lumen of the sleeve receives the distal end of the graft (wherein 1300 represents an equivalent structure to the graft. [0066] discloses Longitudinal lumen 1202 is dimensioned to receive elongate segment 1304 of the connector 1300) such that such that the proximal end portion of the sleeve progressively expands along the slit to provide an enlarged diameter for accommodating the graft ([0066] discloses Slits 1206 allow the second longitudinal end 1204 to slightly expand while a clinician inserts elongate segment 1304 of connector 1300 through longitudinal lumen 1202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the connection between the sleeve and the graft of Bright to include the sleeve having a longitudinal slit and the graft being insertable therein to form a friction fit, as taught by Braga, for the purpose of utilizing a releasable connection means commonly known in the art for securing two tubular items in a manner which would not significantly increase the profile of the elements such that trauma to the surrounding tissue is minimized. The device as modified is at least configured such that the graft can be fixed in the sleeve by radial compression of the tissue around the sleeve because a radial compressive force would further enhance the connection.
Regarding claim 14, Bright/Braga disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 13. Bright further discloses the sleeve is configured to receive substantially the entire length of the shaft between the handle and the tip (FIGs 2A-3 show sleeve 50 has a lumen sized to receive the entire length of shaft 40 as the shaft is translated through the sleeve. Examiner notes the claim does not require the sleeve to have a length which surrounds the entire length of the shaft, only that it be configured to receive the length of the shaft).
Regarding claim 15, Bright/Braga disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 13. The device as modified by Braga further discloses the sleeve is uniformly tapered from the proximal end to the distal such that distal end has a reduced diameter from the proximal end (When the opening at the proximal end is expanded to receive the graft therein, as described in [0066], there is a taper along the sleeve wherein the distal end has a reduced diameter from the proximal end).
Regarding claim 16, Bright/Braga disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 13. The device as modified by Braga further discloses the slit is linear (Braga FIGs 7A-7B).
Regarding claim 17, Bright/Braga disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 13. The device as modified further discloses the sleeve comprises an enlarged diameter portion adjacent the proximal end, the enlarged diameter portion adapted for receiving the cannulation chamber (The claim does not specify what the portion has an enlarged diameter relative to. The proximal end of the sleeve has a diameter that is enlarged at least relative to the end of the graft being inserted therein, in order to receive the graft/cannulation chamber).
Regarding claim 18, Bright/Braga disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 13. Bright further discloses the sleeve comprises a terminal wall at the proximal end (Either wall end at 52 shown in FIG 2B), the wall having an axial opening (Hole passing therethrough, FIG 2B) for receiving the tip of the tunneling instrument for connection of the sleeve to the tunneling instrument (The tunneling tool is passed through an axial opening at the end of the sleeve, FIG 3).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright (US 2009/0299377) in view of Braga (US 2010/0063512), further in view of Barooni (US 2020/0405517), further in view of Marsot (US 2017/0100250).
Regarding claim 12, Bright/Braga/Barooni disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 6. Bright further discloses that a mechanism for attaching a tubular member (20, FIG 1) to the end of the tunneling tool ([0076]) can include a clip ([0077]) radially surrounding the tube in place of suture material 22 which is shown in FIG 1.
Bright is silent regarding the clip including a pin, wherein the shaft has a hole adjacent the tip defining an axial passage for receiving the pin and capturing the sleeve between the clip and the shaft.
However, Marsot teaches exemplary attachment means for adjustably securing medical devices including clips, clasps, and/or a pin and hole assembly ([0192]) among other suitable locking mechanisms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the releasable attachment between the sleeve and the shaft of the tunneling tool of Bright to comprise a clip including a pin, wherein the shaft has a hole adjacent the tip defining an axial passage for receiving the pin and capturing the sleeve between the clip and the shaft, as taught by Bright and Marsot, for the purpose of utilizing a releasable locking mechanism commonly known in the art and achieving the predictable result of securing the sleeve to the tunneling tool in a manner which can easily be release by the user and does not significantly increase the working diameter of the device.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright (US 2009/0299377) in view of Braga (US 2010/0063512), further in view of Marsot (US 2017/0100250).
Regarding claim 19, Bright/Braga disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 13. Bright further discloses that a mechanism for attaching a tubular member (20, FIG 1) to the end of the tunneling tool ([0076]) can include a clip ([0077]) radially surrounding the tube in place of suture material 22 which is shown in FIG 1.
Bright is silent regarding the clip including a pin, wherein the shaft has a hole adjacent the tip defining an axial passage for receiving the pin and capturing the sleeve between the clip and the shaft.
However, Marsot teaches exemplary attachment means for adjustably securing medical devices including clips, clasps, and/or a pin and hole assembly ([0192]) among other suitable locking mechanisms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the releasable attachment between the sleeve and the shaft of the tunneling tool of Bright to comprise a clip including a pin, wherein the shaft has a hole adjacent the tip defining an axial passage for receiving the pin and capturing the sleeve between the clip and the shaft, as taught by Bright and Marsot, for the purpose of utilizing a releasable locking mechanism commonly known in the art and achieving the predictable result of securing the sleeve to the tunneling tool in a manner which can easily be release by the user and does not significantly increase the working diameter of the device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE N LABRANCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 5712727134. 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.
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights