DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 23 December 2025.
Claims 19-38 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to
claims 19-21, 32 and 34-38.
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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Correction of the following is required: the specification does not provide antecedent basis for the term “cover”. “Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.” See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cover” and “contact point” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “expansion limiting feature” in claim 27, which is described at paragraphs [0051], [0063], [0072], [0081] and [0085] of the instant specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 37 recites “device of claim of claim” which should apparently read –device of claim--. Appropriate correction is required. It appears that an extra instance of “of claim” was inserted into the claim language, though not appropriately indicated as an addition to the claim language with underlining, for instance. Applicant is requested to check claim language for conformance with the prior set of filed claims.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
At lines 5-6 of claim 19, it is unclear if “a first magnet” is in addition to, or one of “a plurality of magnets” recited at line 2. A suggested amendment to “a first magnet” is --a first magnet of the plurality of magnets--.
At line 6 of claim 19, it is unclear if “a second magnet” is in addition to, or one of “a plurality of magnets” recited at line 2. A suggested amendment to “a second magnet” is --a second magnet of the plurality of magnets--.
At line 5 of claim 34, it is unclear if “a first magnet” is in addition to, or one of “a plurality of magnets” recited at line 2. A suggested amendment to “a first magnet” is --a first magnet of the plurality of magnets--.
At line 7 of claim 34, it is unclear if “a second magnet” is in addition to, or one of “a plurality of magnets” recited at line 2. A suggested amendment to “a second magnet” is --a second magnet of the plurality of magnets--.
Claim 34 at lines 6-7 recites the limitation "the first interlinked body encapsulating a second magnet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A suggested amendment is -- the first interlinked body, wherein the second interlinked body encapsulates a second magnet--.
At lines 17-18 of claim 34, it is unclear what recited component is “located between the first magnet and the second magnet” as the clause recited at lines 14-18 appears to be a run-on. If the “recited component” is intended to be “a contact point” then a suggested amendment to lines 17-18 of “…the second interlinked body located between the first magnet and the second magnet” is --…the second interlinked body, wherein the contact point is located between the first magnet and the second magnet--.
At line 4 of claim 38, it is unclear if “a first magnet” is in addition to, or one of “a plurality of magnets” recited at line 2. A suggested amendment to “a first magnet” is --a first magnet of the plurality of magnets--.
At line 5 of claim 34, it is unclear if “a second magnet” is in addition to, or one of “a plurality of magnets” recited at line 2. A suggested amendment to “a second magnet” is --a second magnet of the plurality of magnets--.
Claim 38 at lines 14-15 recites “wherein the cover defines a contact point on the cover between the plurality of interlinked bodies…”. It is unclear if the claim is claiming a single contact point, or multiple contact points as multiple contact points could be present given the recitation of “between the plurality of interlinked bodies”. It appears that the claim could be referencing a single contact point as the claim later recites “wherein the contact point is located between the first magnet and the second magnet” however that recitation does not resolve the uncertainty. For purposes of examination, the limitation at lines 14-15 will be construed as a single contact point being claimed.
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.
Claims 34, 35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ekvall et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0053874). Regarding claim 34, Ekvall et al. (hereinafter Ekvall) teaches a sphincter augmentation device (Figs. 13 and 15A-15B, [0033]; [0085], [0092]), comprising:
(a) a plurality of magnets (“magnetic elements” - [0082]-[0083]; Figs. 13 and 15A-15B);
(b) a cover (“flexible fabric or polymer-based band” as described at [0075] and [0082] and shown in Figs. 13 and 15A-15B) that encapsulates the magnets to define a plurality of interlinked bodies (described as “housings” or pockets as described at [0075] and [0082] and shown in Figs. 13 and 15A-15B), wherein the plurality of interlinked bodies comprise a first interlinked body encapsulating a first magnet of the plurality of magnets and a second interlinked body that is adjacent to the fist interlined body and encapsulating a second magnet of the plurality of magnets ([0075]; and [0082] – “Each housing in the array is oriented so that its respective magnetic element (e.g., magnetic element 106 (FIG. 1)) magnetically attracts the two magnetic elements that are immediately adjacent to it in the array”); and
(c) a pair of ends configured to releasably couple together to secure the bodies in a loop formation sized to fit around an internal anatomical passageway of a patient [0047];
wherein the plurality of interlinked bodies are configured to permit the device to transition between a radially contracted state and a radially expanded state (as shown in the transition between Figs. 15A and 15B and as described at [0082]-[0088]);
wherein the cover defines a contact point on the cover between a portion of the cover defining the first interlinked body and a portion of the cover defining the second interlinked body, wherein the contact point is located between the first magnet and the second magnet in the radially contracted state (Absent any showing/description of a “contact point,” the “contact point” for purposes of this claim will be construed as being present on the cover on the portions between the adjacent interlined bodies as shown in the reproduction of Fig. 15A above.) in which the device is configured to exert an inwardly directed force on the anatomical passageway to selectively limit passage of fluids therethrough (see [0085] and [0040]: “if the strong external magnetic field is removed, the magnetic elements within the medical implant may re-align, and the medical implant may return to a closed state and then resume its medical function. As the magnetic elements align, the magnetic attraction between the magnetic elements may generate a force or pressure which resumes constricting or compressing the body tissue.”).
Regarding claim 35, the pair of ends comprise a clasping feature [0047].
Regarding claim 38, Ekvall teaches a sphincter augmentation device (Figs. 13 and 15A-15B, [0033]; [0085], [0092]), comprising:
(a) a plurality of magnets (“magnetic elements” - [0082]-[0083]; Figs. 13 and 15A-15B);
(b) a cover (“flexible fabric or polymer-based band” as described at [0075] and [0082] and shown in Figs. 13 and 15A-15B) that encapsulates the magnets to define a plurality of interlinked bodies (described as “housings” or pockets as described at [0075] and [0082] and shown in Figs. 13 and 15A-15B),
wherein a first magnet of the plurality of magnets is encapsulated in a first interlinked body of the plurality of interlinked bodies and a second magnet of the plurality of magnets is encapsulated in a second interlinked body of the plurality of interlinked bodies ([0075]; and [0082] – “Each housing in the array is oriented so that its respective magnetic element (e.g., magnetic element 106 (FIG. 1)) magnetically attracts the two magnetic elements that are immediately adjacent to it in the array”); and
(c) a pair of ends configured to releasably couple together to secure the bodies in a loop formation sized to fit around an internal anatomical passageway of a patient [0047];
wherein the plurality of interlinked bodies are configured to permit the device to transition between a radially contracted state and a radially expanded state (as shown in the transition between Figs. 15A and 15B and as described at [0082]-[0088]) and the first interlinked body is adjacent the second interlinked body in the radially contracted state (Fig. 15A);
wherein the cover defines a contact point on the cover between the plurality of interlinked bodies (as shown in the reproduction of Fig. 15A above) in the radially contracted state in which the device is configured to exert an inwardly directed force on the anatomical passageway to selectively limit passage of fluids therethrough (see [0085] and [0040]: “if the strong external magnetic field is removed, the magnetic elements within the medical implant may re-align, and the medical implant may return to a closed state and then resume its medical function. As the magnetic elements align, the magnetic attraction between the magnetic elements may generate a force or pressure which resumes constricting or compressing the body tissue.”), wherein the contact point is located between the first magnet and the second magnet (as shown in the reproduction of Fig. 15A above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. Claims 19-24, 26, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekvall et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0053874) in view of Kappus et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0325643). Regarding claims 19 and 20, Ekvall teaches a sphincter augmentation device (Figs. 13 and 15A-15B, [0033]; [0085], [0092]), comprising:
(a) a plurality of magnets (“magnetic elements” - [0082]-[0083]; Figs. 13 and 15A-15B);
(b) a cover (“flexible fabric or polymer-based band” as described at [0075] and [0082] and shown in Figs. 13 and 15A-15B) that encapsulates the magnets to define a plurality of interlinked bodies comprising a first interlinked body and a second interlinked body (described as “housings” or pockets as described at [0075] and [0082] and shown in Figs. 13 and 15A-15B), wherein the first interlinked body encapsulates a first magnet of the plurality of magnets and the second interlinked body encapsulates a second magnet of the plurality of magnets ([0075]; and [0082] – “Each housing in the array is oriented so that its respective magnetic element (e.g., magnetic element 106 (FIG. 1)) magnetically attracts the two magnetic elements that are immediately adjacent to it in the array”); and
(c) a pair of ends configured to releasably couple together to secure the bodies in a loop formation sized to fit around an internal anatomical passageway of a patient [0047];
wherein the cover is configured to flexibly deform to permit the device to transition between a radially contracted state and a radially expanded state (as shown in the transition between Figs .15A and 15B and as described at [0082]-[0088]);
wherein a first portion of the cover associated with the first interlined body and a second portion of the cover associated with the second interlined body are configured to contact each other between the first magnet and the second magnet in the radially contracted state (as shown in Fig. 15A and described at [0088]: “each of the plurality of housings is in contact with its two immediately adjacent neighboring housings (e.g., housing 1512 and housing 1516 in the case of housing 1514”)),
and
wherein the device is configured to exert an inwardly directed force on the anatomical passageway to selectively limit passage of fluids therethrough while in the radially contracted state (see [0085] and [0040]: “if the strong external magnetic field is removed, the magnetic elements within the medical implant may re-align, and the medical implant may return to a closed state and then resume its medical function. As the magnetic elements align, the magnetic attraction between the magnetic elements may generate a force or pressure which resumes constricting or compressing the body tissue.”).
However, Ekvall fails to disclose explicitly that the cover is configured to elastically deform. Kappus et al. (hereinafter Kappus) teaches a sphincter/gastroesophageal assist device (see Abstract and [0042]), wherein the device is comprised of a plurality of interlinked bodies which can move relative to each other to provide an open or closed configuration on the lumen ([0043] and Figs. 1A-1B), as likewise disclosed by Ekvall. The device further comprises a silicone/biocompatible elastic tube/sheath (“cover”) overlying the links [0058], and encapsulating the magnets (“sheath…may enclose all of….the plurality of links” - [0060]), to allow for expansion thereof [0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the cover encapsulating the magnets and respective interlinked bodies as taught by Ekvall, of an elastic material as suggested by Kappus, as Ekvall recognizes that the “member” attaching or linking the multiple housings together, such as the flexible fabric or polymer-based bands may be elastic to facilitate the transition from the open to closed state ([0043], [0046], [0048] and [0058]) and Kappus suggests that an elastic material facilitates expansion of the device with respect to the individual interlinked bodies [0060].
Regarding claim 21, the cover of Ekvall (“flexible fabric or polymer-based band” as described at [0075] and [0082] and shown in Figs. 13 and 15A-15B) is considered to be “an outer jacket”.
Regarding claim 22, the “outer jacket” of Ekvall comprises a support structure given its “support” of the encapsulated magnets with respect to each other (as described at [0075] and [0082]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 23, the support structure as described in Ekvall comprises a plurality of capsules, wherein each capsule of the plurality of capsules encapsulates a respective magnet of the plurality of magnets (Ekvall: [0075]: “FIG. 13 shows housings that are sewn or otherwise held by pockets of one or more flexible fabric- or polymer-based bands”).
Regarding claim 24, the support structure further comprises a plurality of “webs” (created by flexible band member 1508 as shown in the reproduction of Fig. 15A below) that interlink the plurality of capsules (Ekvall: [0086] - “the area or position of structural features in flexible band member 1508 (e.g., areas predetermined to fold) may be determined by pre-creased or pre-crimped areas of the material that makes up flexible band member 1508”). Absent any further description of “webs,” the “pre-creased or pre-crimped areas of the material that makes up flexible band member” as indicated above in Ekvall meet the limitation of “a plurality of webs”.
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png])]
[AltContent: textbox (“plurality of webs”/
“contact point(s)”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 26, Ekvall teaches that each magnet in the plurality of magnets defines a chamber defined by the pockets of the one or more flexible fabric- or polymer-based bands ([0075], [0083] and Fig. 13).
Regarding claims 36 and 37, the cover/”member” of Ekvall (“flexible fabric or polymer-based band”) connects the pair of ends together [0047] and is configured to flexibly deform as described at [0075] and [0082] and shown in Figs. 13 and 15A-15B). The cover is considered to be “an outer jacket” as indicated above. However, Ekvall fails to disclose explicitly that the cover is elastomeric. Kappus teaches a sphincter/gastroesophageal assist device (see Abstract and [0042]), wherein the device is comprised of a plurality of interlinked bodies which can move relative to each other to provide an open or closed configuration on the lumen ([0043] and Figs. 1A-1B), as likewise disclosed by Ekvall. The device further comprises a silicone/biocompatible elastic tube/sheath (“cover”) overlying the links [0058], and encapsulating the magnets (“sheath…may enclose all of….the plurality of links” - [0060]), to allow for expansion thereof [0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the cover encapsulating the magnets and respective interlinked bodies as taught by Ekvall, of an elastomeric material as suggested by Kappus, as Ekvall recognizes that the “member” attaching or linking the multiple housings together, such as the flexible fabric or polymer-based bands may be elastic to facilitate the transition from the open to closed state ([0043], [0046], [0048] and [0058]) and Kappus suggests that an elastic material facilitates expansion of the device with respect to the individual interlinked bodies [0060].
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claims 25 and 27-33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
19. Applicant’s arguments filed 23 December 2025 with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered. While the objection with respect to reference character “606” and the “interfacing element” has been resolved, a “cover” must be shown as claimed, in addition to the currently recited “contact point”.
20. Applicant’s arguments filed 23 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 19-38 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments, however new grounds of rejection are presented above, also in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 23 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 19-38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Kugler (‘235) in view of Kappus (‘643) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments, however new grounds are presented above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) citing Ekvall (‘874) with respect to claims 34, 35 and 38; and 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Ekvall (‘874) in view of Kappus (‘643) with respect to claims 9-24, 26, 36 and 37 in light of the amendments.
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 CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791