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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/10/2025 . As directed by the amendment and election to restriction without traversal: claims 59, 117, and 118 have been amended. Thus, claims 59, 61-64, 66, 69-73, 75-77, and 114-119 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the independent claims on page 5-8:
Applicant argues that the prior art relied upon in the preceding office action does not teach the following limitations of the presently amended claims:
a second connector at the second end configured to connect to a surgical cannula;
Examiner notes that the following rejection as necessitated by the amendment clarifies the manner that the prior art of Stearns can be considered to comprise the newly amended subject matter, such that the outer tubular member 110, previously and presently interpreted as the claimed second connector, can be considered configured in the claimed manner by the manner that it directly receives and permits the axial but not radial translation of an instrument 490, therein configured to directly connect to a surgical cannula in a telescopic/axial-translating manner, and indirectly through tubular member 110’s direct connection to nozzle 145 and nozzle 145’s sealing around instrument 490, therein configured to indirectly connect to a surgical cannula in a fluid sealing manner.
wherein the outer lumen is not configured for delivering gases to the surgical cavity or for removing gases from the surgical cavity through the outer lumen
Examiner notes that in this regard applicant argues that the claimed outer lumen of the prior art relied upon in the preceding and present rejection of record, Stearns’ pressure sense channel 121, cannot be considered to be “not configured for delivering gases to the surgical cavity or for removing gases from the surgical cavity through the outer lumen” because the “the pressure sense channel 121 is removing gases from the abdominal cavity 430 through the pressure sense channel 121 and transporting the gases to the valve 700 via the pressure sense conduit 781 [such that] nothing in Stearns suggests the valve 700 returns the removed gases to the abdominal cavity 430.”
Examiner notes paragraph 178 of applicant’s disclosure which discusses the manner that supporting embodiment’s outer lumen 308 is considered to be “not configured for delivering gases to the surgical cavity or for removing gases from the surgical cavity through the outer lumen”:
“Figure 3 illustrates a cross-sectional view of an example secondary pressure line 300. The secondary pressure line 300 can be co-axially attached or otherwise operably connected to the gases delivery conduit 302. The gases delivery conduit 302 includes a lumen 310, which is an inner lumen, for delivering gases to a surgical cavity. The gases delivery conduit 302 and the secondary pressure line 300 can be coupled to the gases supply at a first end 304 and to the cannula at a second end 306. As described above, a lumen 308, which is an outer lumen, of the secondary pressure line 300 may not be used for delivery or removal of gases as the lumen 308 does not have a gases connection. No therapy gases travel through the lumen 308 to the surgical site. The lumen 308 can be used to determine pressure in the surgical cavity. A pressure sensor 312 can be located at or near the first end 304 of the secondary pressure line 300. The pressure sensor(s) 312 passively measure pressure within the surgical cavity. Some the gases from the surgical cavity may enter the lumen 308 due to the pressure differential between the surgical cavity and the lumen 308, where sensors measure the pressure.” – emphasis added
Accordingly, as the prior art of Stearn’s outer lumen is not fluidically coupled to a gases connection for dispensing therapy gases to the surgical site and permits some amount of gases from within the surgical cavity to passively gauge/govern pressure due to a pressure differential of the surgical cavity and the pressure in the outer lumen, the prior art’s outer lumen can be considered in the claimed configuration in the same manner as the present invention.
Accordingly, examiner's rejection as necessitated by the amendment relying upon the prior art of record previously relied upon, stands.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding dependent claims on page 8:
Applicant argues that their preceding arguments render the independent claims allowable, and consequently likewise the dependent claims are allowable.
See examiner's rejection as necessitated by the amendment, below, detailing the prior art which discloses/teaches the limitations of the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 59, 61-64, 70-73, 75-77, 114, and 117-119 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140188038 A1, henceforth written as Stearns, in view of WO 2015142192 A1, henceforth written as Munkelt.
Regarding Claim 59,
Stearns discloses:
A tube for delivering a flow of gases in a medical gases delivery system, the tube comprising:
(trocar 100; fig 3-8)
a first end and a second end opposite the first end;
(see examiner's figure 1, below, annotating Stearns fig7+8a and delineating the claimed first end and second end as the portions of trocar 100 which are disposed on opposing sides of an abdominal wall 490, relative to an insertion axis of trocar 100)
a first connector at the first end configured to connect to a gases delivery system;
(paragraph 104+110+119; inner tubular member 120, considered the claimed first connector, is considered configured to connect to a gases delivery system in the manner that tubular member 120 fluidically communicates with insufflation plenum 127 which receives insufflation gas sourced from tank 560 via supply conduit 783, conduit 785, conduit 440, and insufflation port 117 and thus together are considered a gases delivery system; fig 6-9; examiner's figure 1 demonstrates inner tubular member 120's disposal at the claimed first end)
a second connector at the second end configured to connect to a surgical cannula;
(paragraph 103+109+113-114; outer tubular member 110, considered the claimed second connector, is considered configured to connect to a surgical cannula in the manner that outer tubular member 110 can receive via its expanded diameter portion 115, and surround with its annular opening 124, an instrument 490 -which fig 30 illustrates as comprising a cannula surgical instrument 2890- and thus couples to instrument 490 to limit a radial movement of the instrument but permit a telescoping/axial relative translation thereof, further the outer tubular member 110 is considered additionally indirectly connected to instrument 490 in the manner that outer tubular member 110 is connected to nozzle 145 via the expanded diameter portion 115 and nozzle 145 seals around instrument 490; fig 6-9; examiner's figure 1 demonstrates outer tubular member 110's disposal at the claimed second end)
an inner conduit defining an inner lumen for delivering gases to a surgical cavity, the inner lumen extending between the first end and the second end;
( the inner surface 105, the claimed inner conduit, of inner tubular member 120 defining lumen 106, the claimed inner lumen, permits transmittal of insufflation gases from the claimed first end to the claimed second end; fig 7)
an outer conduit co-axial with and surrounding the inner conduit,
(the outer wall of outer tubular member 120 is considered the claimed outer conduit; see examiner's figure 1)
an outer lumen being defined between a wall of the outer conduit and a wall of the inner conduit,
(pressure sense channel 121, considered part of the claimed outer lumen which spans from channel 121’s annular opening 124 through pressure sense plenum 139, pressure sense port 119, conduit 781, and pressure sense upper chamber 712, is defined between the inner wall of outer tubular member 120 and the outer wall of inner tubular member 110; see examiner's figure 1)
wherein the outer lumen is not configured for delivering gases to the surgical cavity or for removing gases from the surgical cavity through the outer lumen; and
(paragraph 109+112; pressure sense channel 121 and the claimed outer lumen are considered to be configured in the claimed manner by the manner that channel 121 passively receives gas from the abdominal cavity 430 via aperture 124 and permits its passive communication through channel 121, conduit 781, and upper chamber 712, due to the equalizing of pressure between the insufflation gas pressure provided by the nozzle 145 and the pressure in the abdominal cavity, and thus the pressure within channel 121, and therein is configured to not delivery/remove gases to/from the surgical cavity in the same manner that the disclosed invention is considered configured to not delivery/remove gases to/from the surgical cavity; fig 9; this equilibrium of pressure is such that at non-equilibrium point in time where insufflation pressure is less than an abdominal cavity pressure, the gas within channel 121 flows toward/returns toward the abdominal cavity to equilibrate this pressure, and in the opposite circumstance where insufflation pressure is greater than abdominal cavity pressure then there is a passive return of gas pressure to channel 121)
PNG
media_image1.png
671
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Figure 1
Stearns discloses the elements of the present claim, as described above. Yet, its present embodiment is silent on:
a pressure sensor disposed in the outer lumen, wherein the pressure sensor is in electrical communication with a processor.
Notably, Stearns does state in paragraph 109 that its pressure sense plenum 139, an aspect of pressure sense channel 121, can be connected to an electronic pressure transducer.
However, Munkelt teaches a gas conveying tube with:
a pressure sensor disposed in the -- lumen, wherein the pressure sensor is in electrical communication with a processor.
(paragraph 70-71+74-75+81; wires 15 comprising sensing wires 18 for sensing gas properties such as pressure, temperature, humidity, and flow, and heater wires 14 for heating gas in tube 6, electrically communicates with printed circuit board 92, therein the claimed processor; fig 2-6+8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Munkelt’s teachings of providing a set of heating and sensing wires to a lumen of a gas conveying tube into the outer lumen of the invention disclosed by Stearns, therein arriving at the claimed invention, in order to advantageously at an invention which can electronically determine sensed properties of a gas in a tube which determine a rate of condensate build up, such as pressure, temperature, and humidity, and simultaneously heat the conveyed gas to reduce condensate build up and promote gas ventilation, see paragraph 22+68 of Munkelt. Examiner notes that providing redundant pressure sensing means to the invention of Stearns is advantageous in instances where pressure sensing means fail or degrade over the lifetime of the device and therein improve the reliability of the invention.
Regarding claim 61, Stearns discloses:
The tube of Claim 59, wherein the inner conduit and the outer conduit define dual walls of the tube.
(fig 7 demonstrates that the inner surface 105 and outer wall (not enumerated) of tubular member 120 define dual walls of the trocar 100)
Regarding claim 62, the modified device of Stearns in view of Munkelt discloses:
The tube of Claim 59, wherein the first connector and/or the second connector comprises a Luer connector.
Examiner notes that broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term " luer" to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not inconsistent with the disclosure, may be best provided as: "a male or female fluid connector having a taper, and be capable of forming a fluid tight seal with a similarly shaped opposing sex fluid connector by one connector being received in the other connector".
(accordingly, by the manner by which inner tubular member 120 is tapered from its expanded diameter portion 123 to its distal end (not enumerated), and sealingly mates with a complementarily shaped outer tubular member 110 which receives tubular member 120; fig 5+7)
Regarding Claim 63,
the modified device of Stearns in view of Munkelt discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above. However, the modified device of Stearns in view of Munkelt is silent regarding:
The tube of Claim 62, wherein the Luer connector comprises a resilient outer cover.
However, Stearns teaches an alternative embodiment
wherein the Luer connector comprises a resilient outer cover.
(central aperture 2875 is surrounded by a resilient ring 2873 which helps to form a seal with surgical instruments being advanced through the trocar; fig 31-32)
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the resilient seal taught by the alternative embodiment of Stearns to the proximal opening (not enumerated) of the outer tubular member 110 of Stearns, therein arriving at a resilient outer cover on the claimed second connector, which inhibits proximal gas leaks when conveying a surgical instrument through Stearns trocar 100, see paragraph 141 of Stearns.
Regarding claim 64, the modified device of Stearns in view of Munkelt discloses:
The tube of Claim 59, wherein the pressure sensor is located at the first connector or the second connector.
Examiner notes that that in light of the combination made in claim 59, above, the pressure sensing wire 18 of Munkelt is disposed in the pressure sense channel 121 and therein can be considered to be located at the claimed first connector or the claimed second connector.
Regarding claim 70, the modified device of Stearns in view of Munkelt discloses:
The tube of Claim 59, wherein the pressure sensor comprises a flow sensor in fluid communication with the inner lumen.
Examiner notes that that in light of the combination made in claim 59, above, the wires 15 of Munkelt, inclusive of the flow sensing wire 18, are disposed in the pressure sense channel 121 of Stearns, which as illustrated in Stearns fig 6-7, is in gas fluid communication with the lumen 106 via the abdominal cavity 430 allowing gas to be conveyed therebetween.
Regarding claim 71, the modified device of Stearns in view of Munkelt discloses:
The tube of Claim 70, wherein the flow sensor is coupled to the first connector or the second connector,
Examiner notes that that in light of the combination made in claim 59, above, the wires 15 of Munkelt, inclusive of the flow sensing wire 18, are disposed in the pressure sense channel 121 of Stearns, and therein is connected to outer tubular member 110.
the first connector or the second connector comprising a known orifice with
Stearns: (outer tubular member 110 has a distal aperture 124, therein a known orifice; fig 7)
a leak flow rate that is determined by the flow sensor.
Munkelt: (flow sensing wire 18 determines a flow of gases through the lumen it is disposed within, therein determines a rate by which flow leaks from the abdominal cavity 430 into channel 121; fig 7)
Regarding claim 72, the modified device of Stearns in view of Munkelt discloses:
The tube of Claim 70, wherein the flow sensor is located in the wall of the inner conduit or the wall of the outer conduit.
Examiner notes that that in light of the combination made in claim 59, above, the wires 15 of Munkelt, inclusive of the flow sensing wire 18, are disposed in the pressure sense channel 121 and therein is disposed radially inside of the wall of the claimed outer conduit.
Regarding Claim 73,
The modified device of Stearns in view of Munkelt discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above, including the following limitations of the present claim:
a controller of a gases supply or a humidifier.
Stearns (system 550, inclusive of its humidifier (not enumerated/illustrated), and supply 560 governs and delivers insufflating gas flow to abdominal cavity 430; fig 7)
However, the modified device of Stearns in view of Munkelt is silent regarding:
The tube of Claim 59, wherein the processor is part of a controller of a gases supply or a humidifier.
Notably, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) provides that a modification involving changing the position of one element relative to another, which does not modify the operation of the device, is an obvious matter of design choice.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dispose the processor board 92 of Munkelt with the system 550 of Stearns in order to advantageously arrive at an invention with a greater consolidation of electrical components which consequently reduces an amount of wiring required to mate the associated electronic components of the invention and provides a unified electronic control system for the varied electronic requirements of the invention, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(c).
Regarding Claim 75,
The modified device of Stearns in view of Munkelt discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above. However, the modified device of Stearns in view of Munkelt is silent regarding:
The tube of Claim 59, wherein the processor is embedded within the tube.
Notably, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) provides that a modification involving changing the position of one element relative to another, which does not modify the operation of the device, is an obvious matter of design choice.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to embed Munkelt’s PCB 92 in the tube of Stearns to shield certain sensitive electrical components from wear and failure modes that may be associated with continual exposure to a humid conveyed gas, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(c).
Regarding Claim 76,
The modified device Stearns in view of Munkelt discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above, including the following limitations of the present claim:
The tube of Claim 59, further comprising a humidifier.
Stearns: (paragraph 118; system 550 includes a humidifier (not enumerated/illustrated); fig 7)
However, Stearns in view of Munkelt is silent regarding:
a filter located downstream of a humidifier.
However, Stearns teaches that a filter may be implemented to filter contaminants from supplied air, see paragraph 17+151+157-158.
Notably, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) provides that a modification involving changing the position of one element relative to another, which does not modify the operation of the device, is an obvious matter of design choice.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dispose a gas filter taught by Stearns downstream of Stearns humidifier in order to remove potential contaminants from the gas humidified and supplied to Stearns trocar 100, see paragraph 157-158 of Stearns and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 77, Stearns discloses:
The tube of Claim 59, wherein the tube comprises a delivery tube that connects a gases supply to a humidifier
(fig 7 illustrates a tube (not enumerated) that connects supply 560 to system 550, inclusive of its humidifier (not enumerated/illustrated))
and a supply tube that connects the humidifier to a cannula.
(paragraph 5+97+102+111;tube (not enumerated) connecting port 117 fluidically communicates from system 550, therein including its humidifier (not enumerated/illustrated), and conveys gas through the distal puncturing end of trocar 100, therein a cannula; fig 7)
Regarding claim 114, The modified device of Stearns in view of Munkelt discloses:
The tube of claim 59, further comprising a heater wire, wherein the heater wire is helically wound along the wall of the inner conduit or the wall of the outer conduit.
Examiner notes that that in light of the combination made in claim 59, above, the wires 15 of Munkelt, inclusive of the heater wire 14, are disposed in the channel 121 of Stearns and are shaped as illustrated in fig 5-9 of Munkelt as being helically wound around the lumen they are disposed therein, and accordingly the heater wire 14 is disposed in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 117, Stearns discloses:
The tube of claim 59, wherein the outer lumen is not connected to a gases connection for delivering or removing gases from the surgical cavity.
(the claimed outer lumen is closed at upper chamber 712 and therein is not configured to actively deliver/remove gases from the abdominal cavity 430; fig 7-9)
Regarding claim 118, Stearns discloses:
The tube of claim 59, wherein one end of the outer conduit comprises a closed end between the first end and the second end of the tube.
(pressure sense channel 121 is closed where gas from the abdominal cavity 430 travels through channel 121, and conduit 781 to reach upper chamber 712; examiner notes that in light of Stearns fig 7, the closed upper chamber 712 is disposed axially between a superior most end of the first end annotated in examiner’s figure 1 and an inferior most end of the second end annotated in examiner’s figure 1)
Regarding claim 119, Stearns discloses:
The tube of claim 59, wherein the tube is configured such that, in use, gases from the surgical cavity can enter the outer lumen due to a pressure differential between the surgical cavity and the outer lumen.
(pressure sense channel 121 is closed where gas from the abdominal cavity 430 travels through channel 121, and conduit 781 to reach upper chamber 712; fig 7-9)
Claim 66 and 116 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munkelt, as applied to claim 59 above, in view of US 20200037889 A1, henceforth written as Huang.
Regarding Claim 66,
Stearns in view of Munkelt discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above, including the following limitations of the present claim:
The tube of Claim 59, wherein the pressure sensor comprises an -- ring --
Munkelt: (paragraph 67; wires 15 are spirally wound around tube 6, accordingly can be considered a ring; fig 2-7)
and wherein the -- ring is located at the first connector or the second connector.
Examiner notes that that in light of the combination made in claim 59, above, the pressure sensing wire 18 of Munkelt is disposed in the pressure sense channel 121 and therein can be considered to be located at the claimed first connector or the claimed second connector.
However, Munkelt is silent regarding:
wherein the pressure sensor is configured to deform in response to the pressure,
However, Huang teaches a pressures sensor:
wherein the pressure sensor comprises an expansion ring configured to deform in response to the pressure
(paragraph 27; pressure sensing element inside the pressure sensor 122 deforms in response to the gas pressure; fig 1)
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Huang’s pressure sensor deformation teachings with the pressure sensor wire ring disclosed by Munkelt, such that the claimed subject matter of a pressure sensor ring deforming in response to pressure is arrived upon, as the prior art discloses/teaches that these pressure sensors are equivalents for the same purpose of measuring pressure of a medium, see MPEP 2144.06(I).
Regarding Claim 116, Stearns in view Munkelt, and Huang teaches
The tube of claim 66, wherein the expansion ring comprises a strain sensor that is in electrical communication with a heater wire.
Examiner notes in light of the combination and evidence provided in claim 66 above, particularly paragraph 27 of Huang, that deformation of the pressure sensor -therein a change in dimensions, or otherwise known as strain, of the sensor- corresponds to a proportional change in the pressure measured by the sensor. Munkelt’s fig 8-9 illustrate the electrical communication between heater wire 14 and sensory wires 18 via PCB 92.
Claim 69 and 115 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stearns in view of Munkelt, as applied to claim 59 above, in view of EP 3115088 A1, henceforth written as Wang, and further in view of US 20060122590 A1, henceforth written as Bliweis.
Regarding Claim 69,
Stearns in view of Munkelt discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above, including the following limitations of the present claim:
The tube of Claim 59, wherein the pressure sensor comprises a heater wire in the tube,
Munkelt: (paragraph 67; wires 15 comprise a heater wire 14)
However, Stearns in view of Munkelt is silent regarding:
the heater wire configured to deform in response to the pressure.
However, Wang teaches a sensor, and details in paragraph 62, well understood scientific principles that sensors, or particularly anything composed of matter, deform in response to temperature changes. Further, that temperature changes in a gas elicit like changes in pressure, where the gas is in constant volume, e.g. a tube with a flow rate constant for some amount of time. Further, that an electrical resistance of matter likewise varies with temperature of that matter.
Examiner notes from the above that where a constant volume gas element’s temperature is maintained/adjusted by another element, likewise the gas element’s pressure is maintained/adjusted by that another element. If this maintenance/adjustment is performed via a heat exchange, as the temperature of the another element changes it will physically deform.
In brief, Wang teaches that the changing the temperature of an element deforms it.
However, Bliweis teaches a heating element which heats/cools a gas utilizing the Joule-Thomson effect which in brief details that gasses at low pressure will cool off elements less as compared to gasses at high pressure, see paragraph 90+101, which in other terms is understood as gasses at different pressures exchange energy/heat with their environment at different rates. Bliweis specifically relates the electrical resistance of its heating element to a temperature of said heating element at any moment, see paragraph 137.
Examiner notes from the above that when a first element of matter removes heat/energy from a second element at a given rate, the temperature of the second element will change in proportion with that rate. If that second element necessitates further energy, i.e. current, to maintain a desired temperature, that current is in some way proportional to the heat/energy exchange rate between the first element and the second element.
In brief, Bliweis teaches that a heater of gas will change temperatures at different rates when the gas it heats is at different pressures.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in light of the scientific principle teachings evidenced by Wang and Bliweis, the claimed heater wire of Munkelt would be configured to deform in response to a pressure change of the gas because as the pressure of the gas varies it will exchange heat with the claimed heat wire at a different rate, and therein the energy required to maintain a desired temperature of the gas will change, therein varying the temperature of the claimed heater wire, and consequently deformation of the heater wire occurs, see MPEP 2144.02.
Regarding Claim 115, Stearns in view Munkelt, Wang and Bliweis teaches
The tube of claim 69, wherein the deformation of the heater wire causes a change in electrical resistance of the heater wire, the electrical resistance corresponding to the pressure.
Examiner notes in light of the combination and evidence provided in claim 69 above, particularly paragraph 137 of Bliweis and paragraph 62 of Wang, that deformation of the claimed heater wire corresponds to a change in temperature of the heater wire and likewise a change in temperature of the heater wire corresponds to a change of electrical resistance of the heater wire, in proportion to the pressure of the gas heated by the heater wire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FORREST DIPERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm eastern.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/FORREST B DIPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights