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 .
Claims 18-22 are withdrawn. A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-17 appears herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “it would not be obvious to modify Aluru to include a depth gauge on the distal end of the device, as such a modification would render Aluru unsatisfactory for its intended purpose - namely, reaching into a nasal cavity such as depicted in Fig. 4B, which illustrates the distal portion 120 of Aluru advanced deep within a patient. MPEP § 2143.01(V)”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that disposing a depth gauge on the distal end/half of the device would allow a user to better understand/control how far into the nasal cavity the device is inserted, and would not impinge the ability of the device of Aluru to function.
Applicant further argues “Contrary to the assertion in the Action that the proposed wholesale reconfigurations of the various prior art references amounts to nothing more than "a mere rearrangement of parts," Applicant submits the devices described in the cited prior art are specifically constructed and arranged for their intended purposes, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify them in the manners stated in the Action. Notably, as best understood by Applicant, none of the cited references teach or suggest the evacuation lumen including an opening at the distal end, wherein the diameter of the evacuation lumen and the diameter of the opening are equal, and the coring electrode is arranged on a circumference of the opening, as recited in the amended claims. As previously stated, Aluru teaches a flat planar end with the electrode moved proximally up the shaft from the distal end. Earley discloses an opening 124 at the distal end which is "located inwardly of the periphery of' end member 123.”
Examiner respectfully contends that, as further discussed in the rejection to claims 1 and 15 below, Aluru teaches an electrosurgical device comprising an evacuation lumen including an opening at the distal end, (Fig. 2A-B: The opening defined by support shelf (122) on which electrode (104) rests is disposed on the distal half of shaft (100)) wherein the diameter of the evacuation lumen and the diameter of the opening are equal, and a coring electrode is arranged on a circumference of the opening. (Fig. 2B: electrode (104) rests on support shelf (122), which defines the opening of the evacuation lumen) Earley, as further discussed in the rejection to claims 1 and 15 below, teaches disposing an electrode/opening to an evacuation lumen at a distal end of an electrosurgical device either radially or coaxially with the longitudinal axis of said device, (Fig. 6-7 AND 14-15) wherein the diameter of the opening and the diameter of the evacuation lumen are equal. (Fig. 7)
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 1-17 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.
Claims 1 and 15 recite the limitation “wherein the diameter of the evacuation lumen and the diameter of the opening are equal.” The current claim is unclear as to if the diameter of the evacuation lumen refers to the inner diameter or outer diameter of said lumen. For the purpose of examination, the claimed diameter of the evacuation lumen is interpreted as referring to the inner diameter of the evacuation lumen. Claims 2-14, 16, and 17 are rejected due to their respective dependencies on claims 1 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluru (US 2014/0200581 A1) in view of Earley (US 2006/0235377 A1) in view of Bales (US 6,494,881 B1) in view of Barber (US 6,387,111 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Aluru teaches an electrosurgical system (Fig. 1) comprising:
an electrosurgical device (Fig. 2A) comprising:
a tubular elongated body (Fig. 2A-E, Char. 112 and 100) extending from a proximal end to a distal end along a longitudinal axis, (Fig. 2A-E) and defining an evacuation lumen configured to evacuate tissue from the distal end to the proximal end along the longitudinal axis, (Fig. 2E, Char. 135: suction lumen) the evacuation lumen including an opening at the distal end, (Fig. 2B: the opening defined by support shelf (122) on which electrode (104) rests)
an irrigation channel carried by the elongated body, the irrigation channel configured to deliver a fluid to a target tissue adjacent to the distal end; (Fig. 2E, Char. 114: fluid supply lumen)
a coring electrode at the distal end of the elongated body, (Fig. 2C, Char. 104: active electrode) wherein the coring electrode is arranged on a circumference of the opening; (Fig. 2C) and wherein the coring electrode is configured to operate in a monopolar configuration to deliver radio frequency (RF) plasma energy to adjacent tissue to cut a volume of the target tissue; (Par. [0014])
a dielectric coating on at least a distal portion of the elongated body, the dielectric coating electrically insulating the elongated body from target tissue and the volume of cut target tissue, (Par. [0070]: All surface areas, including the surface area of return electrode (112) may be altered or adjusted using coatings of electrical insulation so as to control the ratio between the wetted return electrode area and the active electrode surface area; The insulative coating would insulate the coated portions of return electrode (112) from any tissue contacting said coated portions)
a return electrode (Fig. 2A-E, Char. 112: return electrode)
a power supply coupled to the electrosurgical device and the return electrode, (Par. [0043]) wherein the power supply is configured to deliver radio frequency (RF) plasma energy of at least about 100V to the coring electrode to cut a volume of the target tissue. (Par. [0046])
Aluru, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the diameter of the evacuation lumen and the diameter of the opening are equal; wherein the opening to the evacuation lumen is coaxial with the longitudinal axis; wherein the dielectric coating comprises a ceramic material; and a depth gauge coupled to an exterior surface of the distal end of the elongated body and configured to prevent further movement of the electrosurgical device after reaching a preset depth defined by the depth gauge, wherein the depth gauge comprises a disc shaped body orthogonal to the longitudinal axis.
Earley, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an electrosurgical device comprising an elongated body extending from a proximal end to a distal end along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 6-7, at least suction tube (73) and cap (86)) and defining an evacuation lumen configured to evacuate tissue from the distal end to the proximal end along the longitudinal axis; (Fig. 7, Char. 73: suction tube) (Fig. 7: the lumen defined by suction tube (73) and cap (86) configured to receive/house electrode (18)) wherein the evacuation lumen comprises an opening at the distal end (Fig. 8: The distal rim of main bore (95)) and wherein the electrosurgical further device comprises an electrode at the distal end of the elongated body (Fig. 6-9, Char. 18: electrode), comprising a plate-like member configured to contact and ablate tissue; (Fig. 8-9, Char. 81: plate-like member; Par. [0039]: Projections (83) of plate-like member (81) define the tissue-working portions of electrode (18)) wherein the diameter of the evacuation lumen and the diameter of the opening are equal; (Fig. 7) and wherein the opening to the evacuation lumen is coaxial with the longitudinal axis; (Fig. 6-7)
Absent a statement of criticality AND unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aluru, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Earley, and reposition the electrode (104) and opening of Aluru, such that the electrode (104) and opening are disposed within plane (151) of Aluru; and to configure the diameter of the evacuation lumen and the diameter of the opening to be equal. Repositioning electrode (104) and the opening of Aluru would be a simple rearrangement of parts involving only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. and would have the predictable result of ablating tissue and evacuating debris via an evacuation lumen. Configuring the diameter of the evacuation lumen and the diameter of the opening to be equal would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
The combination of Aluru/Earley, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding wherein the dielectric coating comprises a ceramic material; and a depth gauge coupled to an exterior surface of the distal end of the elongated body and configured to prevent further movement of the electrosurgical device after reaching a preset depth defined by the depth gauge, wherein the depth gauge comprises a disc shaped body orthogonal to the longitudinal axis.
Bales, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches selectively coating an electrode surface with an insulative coating comprising ceramic materials. (Col. 1, Lines 53-65)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Aluru/Earley, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Bales, and selectively coat portions of return electrode (112) with insulative ceramic material in order to control the ratio of the wetted return electrode area and the active electrode surface area, as suggested in Aluru.
It has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination”- MPEP 2144.07 In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Aluru/Earley, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Bales and have the insulative coatings of Aluru be/include ceramic materials since these materials are recognized by Bales as being suitable for their intended purpose as insulative coatings on electrodes, as discussed.
The combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding a depth gauge coupled to an exterior surface of the distal end of the elongated body and configured to prevent further movement of the electrosurgical device after reaching a preset depth defined by the depth gauge, wherein the depth gauge comprises a disc shaped body orthogonal to the longitudinal axis.
Barber, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a depth gauge (Fig. 1, Char. 10: depth stop) coupled to an exterior surface of the distal end of an elongated body (Fig. 1, Char. 4: cannulated tube) and configured to prevent further movement of the electrosurgical device after reaching a preset depth defined by the depth gauge, (Claim 8) wherein the depth gauge comprises a disc shaped body orthogonal to the longitudinal axis. (Fig. 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Barber and include a disk shaped depth stop coupled to the distal end of shaft (100), such that the depth stop configured to prevent further movement of the electrosurgical device after reaching a preset depth defined by the depth gauge, wherein the depth gauge comprises a disc shaped body orthogonal to the longitudinal axis. Doing so would minimize the risk of accidentally pushing shaft (100) of Aluru too far into the tissue/treatment zone, as indicated in Barber. (Claim 4)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the coring electrode is configured to provide RF plasma energy in the range of about 200KHz to about 3.3MHz. (Aluru: Par. [0045])
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the tubular body comprises an electrically conductive material, (Aluru: Par. [0015]: Electrical energy is applied between the active and return electrodes) and wherein exposure of the conductive material at the distal end defines the coring electrode. (Aluru: Fig. 2B)
The combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the electrically conductive material being an electrically conductive metal.
Earley further teaches forming an ablative electrode out of an electrically conductive metal. (Par. [0039]: electrode (18) is made of conductive metal)
It has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination”- MPEP 2144.07 In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits or suitability of the disclosed materials (e.g. cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, to further incorporate the teachings of Earley and have the electrode (104) of Aluru be/include an electrically conductive metal as taught by Earley since these materials offer the benefits of cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc, as stated above, and are recognized in Earley as being suitable for the intended purpose of ablating a target tissue.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the coring electrode is set at a bevel angle as measured from the longitudinal axis of the elongated body, and wherein the bevel angle extends along the opening of the evacuation lumen. (In the rejection to claim 1 above, the electrode (104) of Aluru was repositioned to be disposed within the plane (151) of Aluru. Given that Plane (151) is at a bevel angle as measured from the longitudinal axis of the elongated body, electrode (104) and apertures (130-132) would also be at the same bevel angle in the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above.)
The combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the bevel angle as measured from the longitudinal axis of the elongated body being within the range of about 100 to about 450.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the bevel angle of Electrode (104) and plane (151) of Aluru to be within the range of about 100 to about 450 as measured from the longitudinal axis of the elongated body, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the elongated body comprises a cutting edge that defines the coring electrode. (Aluru: Par. [0046]: Electrode (104) is configured to be used to produce cutting effects in a target tissue. Therefore, any edge of electrode (104) would be considered a “cutting edge” defining electrode (104))
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 15 above, teaches a negative pressure source coupled to the electrosurgical device, the negative pressure source configured to draw and collect tissue from the distal end to the proximal end of the elongated body. (Aluru: Par. [0074])
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 15 above, teaches an irrigation system coupled to the electrosurgical device, the irrigation system configured to deliver a conductive fluid through the irrigation channel to saturate the target treatment site. (Aluru: Par. [0072])
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluru (US 2014/0200581 A1) in view of Earley (US 2006/0235377 A1) in view of Bales (US 6,494,881 B1), in view of Barber (US 6,387,111 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bass (US 6,102,855).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the elongated body comprises a tubular body having an external surface and an interior surface defining the evacuation lumen, (Aluru: Par. [0073] and Fig. 2E, Char. 109: aspiration element).
The combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding wherein the dielectric coating is applied to both the external surface and the interior surface over a length of the elongated body.
Bass, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a suction channel comprising a metal material having insulating coating operatively formed on both the inside and outside portions of the channel. (Col. 11, Lines 45-48)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Bass, and configure the aspiration element (109) of Aluru to comprise a metal tube having the ceramic insulation of Bales disposed on the exterior and interior surface over a length of the elongated body. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one suction channel for another for the predictable results of transporting tissue debris from a target treatment site.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber/Bass, as applied to claim 3 above, is silent regarding the length over which the dielectric coating is applied is between about 35 mm to about 50 mm from the distal end of the elongated body.
However, looking to applicant’s specification, it appears the claimed length of between 35 mm to 50 mm is merely to ensure proper insulation between the coring electrode (12) and excised tissue and may be any length, including the entire length of the elongate body. (Par. [0052]) Therefore, absent a statement of criticality AND unexpected results, the application length of the ceramic coating in the Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber/Bass, along the entire length of aspiration element (109) is interpreted as reading on the claimed range of between 35 mm to 50 mm.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding a second dielectric coating applied over an exterior surface of the elongated body, the second dialectic coating at least partially overlapping the dielectric coating on the portion of the elongated body; wherein the second dielectric coating affixes the irrigation channel to the elongated body.
Bass, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a second dielectric coating applied over an exterior surface of an elongated body, (Fig. 1, and Col. 10, Lines 11-14: Irrigation channel (32) is coated with an insulating material) the second dialectic coating at least partially overlapping a first dielectric coating on the portion of the elongated body; (Col. 9, Lines 61-64: Insulation surrounds cannula (12)) wherein the second dielectric coating affixes one or more irrigation channels to the elongated body. (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Bass, and configure the irrigation channel of Aluru as a separate tubular structure surrounded by insulation, and attached to the exterior surface of the elongated body, such that the second dialectic coating at least partially overlapping a first dielectric coating on the portion of the elongated body and affixes the one or more irrigation channels to the elongated body. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one irrigation channel for another for the predictable result of delivering fluid to the target treatment zone.
Claim(s) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluru (US 2014/0200581 A1) in view of Earley (US 2006/0235377 A1) in view of Bales (US 6,494,881 B1), in view of Barber (US 6,387,111 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of nonpatent literature reference Elan (Borosilicate Glasses, 2017, Elan Technology).
Regarding claims 6-9, the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding wherein the dielectric coating has a coefficient of thermal expansion of about 8 ppm to about 15 ppm and a dielectric strength of at least about 1000V; wherein the dielectric coating has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is within ± 10% of a coefficient of thermal expansion of a metal substrate forming the elongated body; wherein the dielectric coating comprises alkaline earth borosilicate glass; and wherein the dielectric coating comprises a non-porous film configured to withstand temperatures of at least about 800 °C without melting.
Elan, in a similar field of endeavor relating to insulative materials, teaches Alkaline earth borosilicate glasses are thermally and electrically insulative. (Please see the second paragraph of attached NPL Reference Elan)
It has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination”- MPEP 2144.07 In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits or suitability of the disclosed materials (e.g. cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Elan and have the dielectric coating of Bales be/include Alkaline earth borosilicate glass since these materials offer the benefits of cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc, as stated above.
The combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber/Elan, as applied to claims 6-9 above, is silent regarding wherein the dielectric coating has a coefficient of thermal expansion of about 8 ppm to about 15 ppm and a dielectric strength of at least about 1000V; wherein the dielectric coating has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is within ± 10% of a coefficient of thermal expansion of a metal substrate forming the elongated body; and wherein the dielectric coating comprises a non-porous film configured to withstand temperatures of at least about 800 °C without melting.
However, looking to applicant’s specification, it appears the limitations of “wherein the dielectric coating has a coefficient of thermal expansion of about 8 ppm to about 15 ppm and a dielectric strength of at least about 1000V; wherein the dielectric coating has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is within ± 10% of a coefficient of thermal expansion of a metal substrate forming the elongated body; and wherein the dielectric coating comprises a non-porous film configured to withstand temperatures of at least about 800 °C without melting” are merely material properties of the dielectric coating. Given that the dielectric coating of the Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber/Elan combination, as applied to claims 6-9 above, is made from the same material as the dielectric coating of the present application (alkaline-earth borosilicate glass), one of ordinary art would expect the dielectric coating of the Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber/Elan combination, as applied to claims 6-9 above, to have the same material properties as the coating of the present invention. Therefore, absent a statement of criticality and unexpected results, the material properties of the alkaline earth borosilicate glass of Elan is interpreted as reading on the claimed material properties of claims 6, 7, and 9.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aluru (US 2014/0200581 A1) in view of Earley (US 2006/0235377 A1) in view of Bales (US 6,494,881 B1), in view of Barber (US 6,387,111 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lau (US 2007/0088203 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the elongated body is configured to receive a borescope through the evacuation lumen for visualization of the target treatment site.
Lau, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an elongated body configured to receive a borescope through the evacuation lumen for visualization of the target treatment site. (Par. [0050]: Manipulator (10) includes an elongated member (13) including a lumen that functions as a suction conduit as well as receiving an endoscope therethrough)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Aluru/Earley/Bales/Barber, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Lau, and configure aspiration element (109) of Aluru to receive an endoscope therethrough. Doing so would allow for a user to visualize the target location, as suggested in Lau. (Par. [0009])
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 NICHOLAS SHEA BORSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 3032974276. 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.
/N.S.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights