DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 21, 2026 in response to the Office Action of October 21, 2025 has been acknowledged and entered.
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:
Claims 4 and 17: Claim limitation “a second component…configured to be received” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “component” coupled with functional language “configured to be received” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 4 and 17: “a second component” refers to the Specification as filed, Paragraph [0030]; Fig. 5, inner tube 211 with marker 218B arranged within the outer tube 209.
See MPEP 2181.II.A. The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation. See id. at 1380, 53 USPQ2d at 1229; In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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.
For more information, see MPEP 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 4-7, 10-12, 17, 19-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangiardi (WO 2005006957) in view of Korotko (US 20010039388) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 4, Mangiardi teaches a catheter caliper (Fig. 3), comprising: a catheter caliper (100), including a first component including an outer tube (Fig. 3, exterior conduit 130) and an elongate body (interior conduit 180) extending from the outer tube (130), the outer tube having a first marker (a depth marking mechanism 210 visible through the proximal region of the exterior conduit), the first component defined between a distal end of the outer tube (130) and a proximal end of the elongate body (180) (See Fig. 3); a second component (measurement assembly 240) configured to be received in the outer tube (130) (See Fig. 4), and defined between a proximal end and a distal end (See Fig. 4), the distal end having a second marker (Fig. 14, marker 160).
However, Mangiardi does not teach “a ruler arranged at a proximal end of one of the first and second components, the ruler having a plurality of markings each spaced apart by predetermined intervals and a pointer arranged at a proximal end of the other of the first and second components, the pointer configured to point to the plurality of markings on the ruler.”
Korotko, in a related field of endeavor, teaches an apparatus for measuring length in a blood vessel comprising a ruler (scale 118) arranged at a proximal end of one of the first and second components, the ruler having a plurality of markings each spaced apart by predetermined intervals (See Figs. 8-9); and a pointer (indicator 120) arranged at a proximal end of the other of the first (110) and second components (112), the pointer configured to point to the markings on the ruler (scale 118) (See Fig. 9).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified Mangiardi to provide “a ruler arranged at a proximal end of one of the first and second components, the ruler having a plurality of markings each spaced apart by predetermined intervals and a pointer arranged at a proximal end of the other of the first and second components, the pointer configured to point to the markings on the ruler” as taught by Korotko. Doing so enables accurate measuring of the dimensions of a length, within a blood vessel. (Paragraph [0007] of Korotko).
Regarding claim 5, Mangiardi teaches a handle (220), but not specifically a pointer arranged on the handle.
Korotko teaches wherein the pointer is arranged on a finger loop or handle. (See Fig. 9, indicator 120 arranged on L-shaped, handle-like element).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mangiardi to provide “wherein the pointer is arranged on a finger loop or handle” as taught by Korotko. Doing so provides the pointer on an element that is translatable along the shaft that show how far apart the barrels have been pulled in order to make the measurement. (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Mangiardi does not teach “wherein moving the pointer with respect to the ruler moves one of the first marker and the second marker with respect to the other of the first and second markers."
Korotko, in a related field of endeavor, teaches an apparatus for measuring length in a blood vessel wherein moving the pointer (indicator 120) with respect to the ruler (scale 118) moves one of the first marker (114) and the second marker (116) with respect to the other of the first and second markers. (Paragraphs [0040]-[0043]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mangiardi to provide “wherein moving the pointer with respect to the ruler moves one of the first marker and the second marker with respect to the other of the first and second markers” as taught by Korotko. Doing so allows the physician to pull the caliper apart to the correct distance. (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, Mangiardi does not teach “wherein moving the first marker with respect to the second marker moves the pointer with respect to the ruler."
Korotko teaches an apparatus for measuring length in a blood vessel wherein moving the first marker (114) with respect to the second marker (116) moves the pointer (120) with respect to the ruler (118). (Paragraphs [0040]-[0043]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mangiardi to provide “wherein moving the first marker with respect to the second marker moves the pointer with respect to the ruler” as taught by Korotko. Doing so allows the physician to pull the caliper apart to the correct distance. (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Mangiardi illustrates (Figs. 2, 4) wherein the outer tube (130) includes a lumen (internal space of exterior conduit 130) therethrough configured to receive a guidewire (interior conduit 180).
Regarding claim 11, Mangiardi illustrates wherein the outer tube (130) includes a space configured to receive the distal end of the second component (240). (See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Mangiardi illustrates (Fig. 14) wherein the space is configured such that when the distal end of the second component (240) is received at a terminus of the space, the first (210) and second markers (160) are aligned.
Regarding claim 17, Mangiardi teaches a method of making intravascular measurements, the method including: inserting a catheter caliper into a vasculature of a patient to a location near an artifact or feature to be measured (Page 9, lines 23-26), the catheter caliper (100) including a first component including an outer tube (130) and an elongate body (180) extending from the outer tube (130), the outer tube having a first marker (depth marking mechanism 210 visible through the proximal region of the exterior conduit), the first component defined between a distal end of the outer tube and a proximal end of the elongate body (180) (See Fig. 3);
a second component (measurement assembly 240) configured to be received in the outer tube (130) (See Fig. 4), and defined between a proximal end and a distal end (See Fig. 4), the distal end having a second marker (Fig. 14, marker 160),
However, Mangiardi does not teach “a ruler arranged at a proximal end of one of the first and second components, the ruler having a plurality of markings each spaced apart by predetermined intervals”, “a pointer arranged at a proximal end of the other of the first and second components, the pointer configured to point to the markings on the ruler; positioning the distal end of the first and second components past the artifact or feature; and moving the pointer with respect to the ruler such that the first marker moves with respect to the second marker and the first marker is positioned at a first end of the artifact or feature and the second marker is positioned at a second end of the artifact or feature.”
Korotko teaches a ruler (118) arranged at a proximal end of one of the first and second components, the ruler having a plurality of markings each spaced apart by predetermined intervals (See Figs. 8-9); and a pointer (indicator 120) arranged at a proximal end of the other of the first (110) and second components (112), the pointer configured to point to the markings on the ruler (scale 118) (See Fig. 9); positioning the distal end of the first and second components past the artifact or feature (Paragraph [0041]); and moving the pointer (120) with respect to the ruler (118) such that the first marker (114) moves with respect to the second marker (116) and the first marker is positioned at a first end of the artifact or feature and the second marker is positioned at a second end of the artifact or feature. (Paragraphs [0040]-[0042]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified Mangiardi to provide “a ruler arranged at a proximal end of one of the first and second components, the ruler having a plurality of markings each spaced apart by predetermined intervals; and a pointer arranged at a proximal end of the other of the first and second components, the pointer configured to point to the markings on the ruler; positioning the distal end of the first and second components past the artifact or feature; and moving the pointer with respect to the ruler such that the first marker moves with respect to the second marker and the first marker is positioned at a first end of the artifact or feature and the second marker is positioned at a second end of the artifact or feature” as taught by Korotko. Doing so enables accurate measuring of the dimensions of a length, within a blood vessel. (Paragraph [0007] of Korotko).
Regarding claim 19, Mangiardi illustrates (Figs. 2, 4) wherein the outer tube (130) includes a lumen (internal space of exterior conduit 130) therethrough configured to receive a guidewire (interior conduit 180).
Regarding claim 20, Mangiardi illustrates wherein the outer tube (130) includes a space configured to receive the distal end of the second component (240). (See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21, Mangiardi teaches a catheter caliper assembly (Fig. 3), comprising: a catheter caliper (100) including: a first member including a first tube (Fig. 3, exterior conduit 130) having a distal end and a proximal end, the first tube having a first marker near the distal end (a depth marking mechanism 210); a second member (240) having a proximal end and a distal end, a second marker (Fig. 14, marker 160) near the distal end marker, wherein the distal end of the second member is received within the first tube such that relative axial movement between the first tube and the second member (240) causes separation of the first and second markers (See Fig. 4; Page 11, lines 1-23).
However, Mangiardi does not teach “a ruler arranged at the proximal end of one of the first member and the second member, the ruler having a plurality of markings spaced apart by predetermined intervals; and a pointer arranged at the proximal end of the other of the first member and the second member, the pointer configured to point to the markings on the ruler to indicate a distance between the first marker and the second marker.”
Korotko teaches a ruler (118) arranged at a proximal end of one of the first and second components, the ruler having a plurality of markings each spaced apart by predetermined intervals (See Figs. 8-9); and a pointer (120) arranged at the proximal end of the other of the first member (110) and the second member (112), the pointer configured to point to the markings on the ruler (scale 118) (See Fig. 9) to indicate a distance between the first marker and the second marker.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified Mangiardi to provide “a ruler arranged at a proximal end of one of the first and second components, the ruler having a plurality of markings each spaced apart by predetermined intervals and a pointer arranged at the proximal end of the other of the first member and the second member, the pointer configured to point to the markings on the ruler to indicate a distance between the first marker and the second marker” as taught by Korotko. Doing so enables accurate measuring of the dimensions of a length, within a blood vessel. (Paragraph [0007] of Korotko).
Regarding claim 22, Mangiardi teaches wherein the first member further includes a first elongate body (180) extending proximally from the first tube (130), and the second member further includes a second elongate body (240). (See Fig. 3).
However, Mangiardi does not teach “wherein the ruler and the pointer are arranged at proximal portions of the respective elongate bodies”.
Korotko teaches wherein the ruler (118) and the pointer (120) are arranged at proximal portions of the respective elongate bodies (110, 112). (See Figs. 8-9).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified Mangiardi to provide “wherein the ruler and the pointer are arranged at proximal portions of the respective elongate bodies” as taught by Korotko. Doing so enables accurate measuring of the dimensions of a length, within a blood vessel. (Paragraph [0007] of Korotko).
Regarding claim 23, Mangiardi does not specifically teach “wherein the first tube and the second member are configured such that, in a zero position, the first marker and the second marker are axially aligned when the distal end of the second member is received within the first tube, and the pointer points to a marking on the ruler indicative of the zero position”.
Mangiardi teaches (Fig. 14) wherein the first tube (exterior conduit 130) and the second member (measurement assembly 240) are configured such that, in a zero position, the first marker (210) and the second marker (160) are axially aligned when the distal end of the second member is received within the first tube.
However, Mangiardi does not specifically teach “the pointer points to a marking on the ruler indicative of the zero position.”
Korotko illustrates (Fig. 9) a pointer (120) points to a marking on the ruler indicative of the zero position. (Paragraph [0041]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified Mangiardi to provide wherein “the pointer points to a marking on the ruler indicative of the zero position” as taught by Korotko. Doing so enables accurate measuring of the dimensions of a length, within a blood vessel. (Paragraph [0007] of Korotko).
Regarding claim 24, Mangiardi does not specifically teach wherein the first marker and the second marker are “radiopaque markers configured to be visible under fluoroscopic imaging”.
Korotko teaches radiopaque markers configured to be visible under fluoroscopic imaging. (Paragraphs [0035], [0038]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified Mangiardi to provide wherein the first marker and the second marker are “radiopaque markers configured to be visible under fluoroscopic imaging” as taught by Korotko. Doing so enables markers to be visible on fluoroscopy, thus allowing the physician to pull the barrels apart to the correct distance. (Paragraph [0041] of Korotko).
Regarding claim 26, Mangiardi teaches wherein relative axial movement between the first tube (130) and the second member (240) is configured to be manually controlled at the proximal end (via handle 220, trigger 230), but does not specifically teach “by moving the pointer relative to the ruler while the distal ends of the first and second members are positioned within a vasculature of a patient.”
Korotko, as previously discussed, teaches an apparatus for measuring length in a blood vessel by moving the pointer (120) relative to the ruler (118) while the distal ends of the first and second members are positioned within a vasculature of a patient. (Paragraph [0041]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified Mangiardi to provide wherein relative axial movement between the first tube and the second member is configured to be manually controlled at the proximal end “by moving the pointer relative to the ruler while the distal ends of the first and second members are positioned within a vasculature of a patient” as taught by Korotko. Doing so enables accurate measuring of the dimensions of a length, within a blood vessel. (Paragraph [0007] of Korotko).
Regarding claim 27, Mangiardi teaches wherein the first member further includes a first elongate body (180) extending proximally from the first tube (130), and the second member further includes a second elongate body (240), and relative axial movement between the first tube (130) and the second member (240) is configured to be manually controlled at the proximal end (via handle 220, trigger 230), but does not specifically teach “by moving the pointer relative to the ruler while the distal ends of the first and second members are positioned within a vasculature of a patient.
Korotko, as previously discussed, teaches an apparatus for measuring length in a blood vessel by moving the pointer (120) relative to the ruler (118) while the distal ends of the first and second members are positioned within a vasculature of a patient. (Paragraph [0041]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified Mangiardi to provide wherein relative axial movement between the first tube and the second member is configured to be manually controlled at the proximal end “by moving the pointer relative to the ruler while the distal ends of the first and second members are positioned within a vasculature of a patient” as taught by Korotko. Doing so enables accurate measuring of the dimensions of a length, within a blood vessel. (Paragraph [0007] of Korotko).
Claim 8-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangiardi in view of Korotko, further in view of Mayberry (US 20080172122) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 8-9, Mangiardi as modified does not teach wherein the second component includes “a second wire at the proximal end” and wherein the second component includes “an inner tube at the distal end, the inner tube configured to be received in the outer tube, the inner tube including the second marker.”
Mayberry, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a guidewire assembly wherein the second component includes a second wire (166) at the proximal end, (See Fig. 4), wherein the second component includes an inner tube (second tubular sheath 164) at the distal end, the inner tube configured to be received in the outer tube (128). (Paragraph [0060]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mangiardi as modified to provide wherein the second component includes “a second wire at the proximal end” (claim 8) and wherein the second component includes “an inner tube at the distal end, the inner tube configured to be received in the outer tube” (claim 9), as taught by Mayberry, the inner tube including the second marker of Mangiardi. Doing so provides a less invasive approach to endoluminal repair that enables deployment of the distal segment of the graft before the proximal segment, and provides access through the expanded graft for subsequent catheterizations. (Paragraphs [0011]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 18, Mangiardi as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the second component includes “an inner tube at the distal end, the inner tube configured to be received in the outer tube, the inner tube including the second marker”.
Mayberry, as previously discussed, teaches wherein the second component includes an inner tube (110) at the distal end, the inner tube configured to be received in the outer tube (112).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mangiardi to provide wherein the second component includes “an inner tube at the distal end, the inner tube configured to be received in the outer tube,” as taught by Mayberry, the inner tube including the second marker of Mangiardi. Doing so provides a less invasive approach to endoluminal repair that enables deployment of the distal segment of the graft before the proximal segment, and provides access through the expanded graft for subsequent catheterizations. (Paragraphs [0011]-[0014]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangiardi in view of Korotko, further in view of Bajema (WO 2015153599).
Regarding claim 25, Mangiardi as modified does not teach “wherein the first member and the second member are configured as a rapid-exchange catheter assembly adapted to be advanced over a guidewire.”
Bajema, in a related field of endeavor, teaches (Figs. 1-2) wherein the first member (tube 14) and the second member (shaft 24) are configured as a rapid-exchange catheter assembly adapted to be advanced over a guidewire (26). (Page 10, lines 19-24).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified Mangiardi as modified to provide “wherein the first member and the second member are configured as a rapid-exchange catheter assembly adapted to be advanced over a guidewire” as taught by Bajema. Doing so increases the speed and efficiency of procedures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 4-12 and 17-27 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 103. In the new ground of rejection, Mangiardi is relied upon for the amended feature.
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 Om A. Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-6331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/OM PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights