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 Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to drawing objections, claim objections, and 112 rejections of record have been considered persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-11, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantanus (US 20160228249 A1) in view of Nia (WO 2020197869 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mantanus teaches an expandable framework ([0048]) for use in a replacement heart valve implant (abstract), comprising: a plurality of frame struts (see struts, annotated fig 2) defining a lattice structure around a central longitudinal axis (see lattice structure around central longitudinal axis, annotated fig 2), each frame strut having a strut thickness in a radial direction from the central longitudinal axis (the struts have thicknesses, annotated fig 2); wherein the plurality of frame struts defines a lower crown (inferior crown 20a, fig 2) proximate an inflow end of the lattice structure (see orientation in annotated fig 2, end structure capable of allowing inflow) and upper crown (superior crown 20b, fig 2) proximate an outflow end of the lattice structure (see orientation in annotated fig 2, end structure capable of allowing outflow) and a plurality of stabilization arches (wings or arches 24, fig 2) extending downstream from the outflow end of the lattice structure (see orientation in annotated fig 2); wherein the lattice structure includes a first circumferential row of x-connectors (see annotated fig 2) upstream of the upper crown (see orientation in annotated fig 2) and a second circumferential row of x-connectors (see annotated fig 2) downstream of the lower crown (see orientation in annotated fig 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Mantanus doesn’t exactly teach a reduced strut thickness. Nia teaches an expandable framework for use in a heart valve device (abstract) wherein frame struts can have a reduced/altered strut thickness ([0067-0068] or [0081] or [0089]) to provide increased compliance for accommodating native valve leaflets while maintaining radial strength of the framework ([0067-0068] or [0081] or [0089]) structure is capable of this).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus, by applying the teaching of a reduced/altered strut thickness, as taught by Nia, in order to control and distribute radial forces of the implant as desired ([0067-0068]). Further, since it has been held wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The general structure of the valve struts is taught by the prior art, and varying strut thickness is common in the art, therefore determining the thickness of select struts would require only routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 2, Mantanus doesn’t exactly teach a reduced strut thickness. Nia teaches an expandable framework for use in a heart valve device (abstract) wherein frame struts can have a reduced/altered strut thickness ([0067-0068] or [0081] or [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus, by applying the teaching of a reduced/altered strut thickness, as taught by Nia, in order to control and distribute radial forces of the implant as desired ([0067-0068]). Further, since it has been held wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The general structure of the valve struts is taught by the prior art, and varying strut thickness is common in the art, therefore determining the thickness of select struts downstream of the first circumferential row would require only routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 3, Mantanus doesn’t exactly teach a reduced strut thickness. Nia teaches an expandable framework for use in a heart valve device (abstract) wherein frame struts can have a reduced/altered strut thickness ([0067-0068] or [0081] or [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus, by applying the teaching of a reduced/altered strut thickness, as taught by Nia, in order to control and distribute radial forces of the implant as desired ([0067-0068]). Further, since it has been held wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The general structure of the valve struts is taught by the prior art, and varying strut thickness is common in the art, therefore determining the thickness of select struts downstream of the first circumferential row would require only routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 4, Mantanus doesn’t exactly teach a reduced strut thickness. Nia teaches an expandable framework for use in a heart valve device (abstract) wherein frame struts can have a reduced/altered strut thickness ([0067-0068] or [0081] or [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus, by applying the teaching of a reduced/altered strut thickness, as taught by Nia, in order to control and distribute radial forces of the implant as desired ([0067-0068]). Further, since it has been held wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The general structure of the valve struts is taught by the prior art, and varying strut thickness is common in the art, therefore determining the thickness of select struts upstream of the second circumferential row would require only routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 5, Mantanus doesn’t exactly teach a reduced strut thickness. Nia teaches an expandable framework for use in a heart valve device (abstract) wherein frame struts can have a reduced/altered strut thickness ([0067-0068] or [0081] or [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus, by applying the teaching of a reduced/altered strut thickness, as taught by Nia, in order to control and distribute radial forces of the implant as desired ([0067-0068]). Further, since it has been held wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The general structure of the valve struts is taught by the prior art, and varying strut thickness is common in the art, therefore determining the thickness of select struts upstream of the second circumferential row would require only routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 8, Mantanus doesn’t exactly teach a reduced strut thickness wherein the at least some frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors includes all frame struts of the plurality of frame struts directly connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x- connectors.
Nia teaches an expandable framework for use in a heart valve device (abstract) wherein frame struts can have a reduced/altered strut thickness ([0067-0068] or [0081] or [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus, by applying the teaching of a reduced/altered strut thickness, as taught by Nia, in order to control and distribute radial forces of the implant as desired ([0067-0068]). Further, since it has been held wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The general structure of the valve struts is taught by the prior art, and varying strut thickness is common in the art, therefore determining the thickness of select (or all) struts would require only routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 10, Mantanus teaches a replacement heart valve implant (abstract), comprising an expandable framework ([0048]) comprising a plurality of frame struts (see struts, annotated fig 2) defining a lattice structure around a central longitudinal axis (see lattice structure around central longitudinal axis, annotated fig 2), each frame strut having a thickness in a radial direction from the central longitudinal axis (the struts have thicknesses, annotated fig 2); and a plurality of valve leaflets coupled to the expandable framework (element 16 fig 1, [0057]); wherein the plurality of frame struts defines a lower crown (inferior crown 20a, fig 2) proximate an inflow end of the lattice structure (see orientation in annotated fig 2) and upper crown (superior crown 20b, fig 2) proximate an outflow end of the lattice structure (see orientation in annotated fig 2) and a plurality of stabilization arches (wings or arches 24, fig 2) extending downstream from the outflow end of the lattice structure (see orientation in annotated fig 2); wherein the lattice structure includes a first circumferential row of x-connectors (see annotated fig 2) upstream of the upper crown (see orientation in annotated fig 2) and a second circumferential row of x-connectors (see annotated fig 2) downstream of the lower crown (see orientation in annotated fig 2);
Mantanus doesn’t exactly teach a reduced strut thickness. Nia teaches an expandable framework for use in a heart valve device (abstract) wherein frame struts can have a reduced/altered strut thickness ([0067-0068] or [0081] or [0089]) to provide increased compliance for accommodating native valve leaflets while maintaining radial strength of the framework ([0067-0068] or [0081] or [0089]) structure is capable of this).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus, by applying the teaching of a reduced/altered strut thickness, as taught by Nia, in order to control and distribute radial forces of the implant as desired ([0067-0068]). Further, since it has been held wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The general structure of the valve struts is taught by the prior art, and varying strut thickness is common in the art, therefore determining the thickness of select struts would require only routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 11, Mantanus further teaches wherein the plurality of valve leaflets is configured to substantially restrict fluid from flowing through the replacement heart valve implant in a closed position ([0057]).
Regarding claim 15, Mantanus teaches a replacement heart valve implant (abstract), comprising a plurality of frame struts (see struts, annotated fig 2) defining a lattice structure around a central longitudinal axis (see lattice structure around central longitudinal axis, annotated fig 2), each frame strut having a strut thickness in a radial direction from the central longitudinal axis (the struts have thicknesses, annotated fig 2); wherein the plurality of frame struts defines a lower crown (inferior crown 20a, fig 2) proximate an inflow end of the lattice structure (see orientation in annotated fig 2) and upper crown (superior crown 20b, fig 2) proximate an outflow end of the lattice structure (see orientation in annotated fig 2) and a plurality of stabilization arches (wings or arches 24, fig 2) extending downstream from the outflow end of the lattice structure (see orientation in annotated fig 2); wherein the lattice structure includes a first circumferential row of x-connectors (see annotated fig 2) and a second circumferential row of x-connectors (see annotated fig 2) longitudinally spaced apart from the first circumferential row of x-connectors (see orientation in annotated fig 2);
Mantanus doesn’t exactly teach a reduced strut thickness. Nia teaches an expandable framework for use in a heart valve device (abstract) wherein frame struts can have a reduced/altered strut thickness ([0067-0068] or [0081] or [0089]) to provide increased compliance for accommodating native valve leaflets while maintaining radial strength of the framework ([0067-0068] or [0081] or [0089]) structure is capable of this).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus, by applying the teaching of a reduced/altered strut thickness, as taught by Nia, in order to control and distribute radial forces of the implant as desired ([0067-0068]). Further, since it has been held wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The general structure of the valve struts is taught by the prior art, and varying strut thickness is common in the art, therefore determining the thickness of select struts would require only routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 21, Mantanus doesn’t exactly teach a reduced strut thickness. Nia teaches an expandable framework for use in a heart valve device (abstract) wherein frame struts can have a reduced/altered strut thickness ([0067-0068] or [0081] or [0089]) to provide an increased radial outward force against an annulus of a native valve compared to the struts having a uniform thickness or an increased resistance to axial migration compared to frame struts having uniform strut thickness ( the structure is generally the same, therefore the structure is capable providing the same radial outward force or increased migration resistance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus, by applying the teaching of a reduced/altered strut thickness, as taught by Nia, in order to control and distribute radial forces of the implant as desired ([0067-0068]). Further, since it has been held wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The general structure of the valve struts is taught by the prior art, and varying strut thickness is common in the art, therefore determining the thickness of select struts would require only routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantanus (US 20160228249 A1) in view of Nia (WO 2020197869 A1) and in further view of Yohana (US 9168131 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Mantanus in view of Nia appears to teach wherein the upper crown defines a first maximum outer extent of the lattice structure (superior crown 20b is widest part of lattice, fig 2), and the lower crown defines a second maximum outer extent of the lattice structure inferior crown 20a is second widest part of lattice, fig 2; wherein the at least some frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors defines a third maximum outer extent of the lattice structure less than the first maximum outer extent and the second maximum outer extent (the struts in between the connectors have a third extent that is smaller than the crown extents). However, Yohanan provides more extensive detail on a heart valve with supports (abstract) wherein the upper crown defines a first maximum outer extent of the lattice structure (upper outflow crown at D4 is wider than D3, see annotated fig 13 and col 11, lines 1-26), and the lower crown defines a second maximum outer extent of the lattice structure (lower inflow crown at D2 is wider than D3, see annotated fig 13 and col 11, lines 1-26); wherein the at least some frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors defines a third maximum outer extent of the lattice structure less than the first maximum outer extent and the second maximum outer extent (see D3 in annotated fig 13 and col 11, lines 1-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Mantanus in view of Nia by including the diameter orientation, as taught by Yohana. It appears the device taught by Mantanus already comprises a similar structure based on the drawing of figure 2. It would be obvious to incorporate the structure details from Yohana because it would only be minor alterations to the shape of the structure of Mantanus and would provide several advantages such as reduced trauma, reduced obstruction, secure implantation, improved positioning and better contact (col 12-13).
PNG
media_image2.png
517
998
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 13
Regarding claim 12, Mantanus further teaches to the expandable framework at a plurality of commissures disposed adjacent the plurality of stabilization arches ([0055]). Mantanus does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of valve leaflets is fixedly attached. However, Yohanan teaches a heart valve with supports (abstract) wherein the plurality of valve leaflets is fixedly attached (col 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Mantanus in view of Nia by applying the leaflet attachment, as taught by Yohana. It would be obvious to incorporate the fixed attachment from Yohana, in order to fixedly secure and protect the leaflets (col 2).
Regarding claim 13, Mantanus further teaches wherein the plurality of commissures is disposed longitudinally between the plurality of stabilization arches and the upper crown (see orientation of commissural support posts 22a, fig 2).
Claims 6, 7, and 16-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantanus (US 20160228249 A1) in view of Nia (WO 2020197869 A1) and in further view of Skousen (US 20150164664 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mantanus in view of Nia fails to teach wherein the thickness of the at least some frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors tapers radially inward toward a medial portion of the at least some frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors. However, Skousen teaches an implant with struts (abstract) wherein the thickness of the at least some frame tapers radially inward toward a medial portion of the at least some frame struts (fig 2, [0042], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus in view of Nia, by applying the teaching of a tapered strut thickness, as taught by Skousen, in order to complete a simple substitution of known prior art strut shapes to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, Mantanus fails to teach wherein the thickness of the at least some frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors tapers from a first thickness at a first position adjacent the first circumferential row of x-connectors and a second thickness at a second position adjacent the second circumferential row of x-connectors to a minimum thickness at a third position disposed longitudinally between the first position and the second position; wherein the minimum thickness is less than the first thickness and the second thickness. However, Skousen teaches an implant with struts (abstract) wherein the thickness of the at least some frame struts tapers from a first thickness at a first position at an end and a second thickness at a second end to a minimum thickness at a third position disposed longitudinally between the first position and the second position; wherein the minimum thickness is less than the first thickness and the second thickness (fig 2, [0042], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus in view of Nia, by applying the teaching of a tapered strut thickness, as taught by Skousen, in order to complete a simple substitution of known prior art strut shapes to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 16, Mantanus fails to exactly teach wherein the thickness of at least some frame struts directly connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors varies in a longitudinal direction. However, Skousen teaches an implant with struts (abstract) wherein the thickness of at least some frame struts varies in a longitudinal direction (fig 2, [0042], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus in view of Nia, by applying the teaching of a tapered strut thickness, as taught by Skousen, in order to complete a simple substitution of known prior art strut shapes to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, Mantanus fails to exactly teach wherein the thickness of each frame strut directly connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors varies. However, Skousen teaches an implant with struts (abstract) wherein the thickness of each frame strut varies ([0135], [0113], [0144], fig 27a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus in view of Nia, by applying the teaching of a tapered strut thickness, as taught by Skousen, in order to complete a simple substitution of known prior art strut shapes to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 18, Mantanus fails to exactly teach wherein the thickness of each frame strut directly connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors varies in a longitudinal direction. However, Skousen teaches an implant with struts (abstract) wherein the thickness of each frame strut varies in a longitudinal direction (fig 2, [0042], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus in view of Nia, by applying the teaching of a tapered strut thickness, as taught by Skousen, in order to complete a simple substitution of known prior art strut shapes to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 19, Mantanus fails to teach wherein the thickness of the at least some frame struts directly connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors tapers radially inward toward a medial portion of the at least some frame struts directly connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors. However, Skousen teaches an implant with struts (abstract) wherein the thickness of the at least some frame struts tapers radially inward toward a medial portion of the at least some frame struts (fig 2, [0042], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus in view of Nia, by applying the teaching of a tapered strut thickness, as taught by Skousen, in order to complete a simple substitution of known prior art strut shapes to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 20, Mantanus fails to teach wherein the thickness of the at least some frame struts directly connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors tapers radially inward from the first circumferential row of x-connectors toward the second circumferential row of x-connectors and the thickness of the at least some frame struts directly connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors tapers radially inward from the second circumferential row of x-connectors toward the first circumferential row of x-connectors. However, Skousen teaches an implant with struts (abstract) wherein the thickness of the at least some frame struts tapers radially inward from the first end toward the second end and the thickness of the at least some frame struts tapers radially inward from the second end to the first end (fig 2, [0042], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least some frame struts of the plurality of frame struts connecting the first circumferential row of x-connectors to the second circumferential row of x-connectors, as taught by Mantanus in view of Nia, by applying the teaching of a tapered strut thickness, as taught by Skousen, in order to complete a simple substitution of known prior art strut shapes to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANNA LOUISE PASQUALINI whose telephone number is (703)756-1984. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 7:30PM-5:00PM EST M-F (occasionally off Fridays).
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/H.L.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/YASHITA SHARMA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights