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
Regarding the previous drawing objection, the amendment to claim 13 is acknowledged and the drawing objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the previous claim objections, the amendments to claims 1-2 and 4-5 are acknowledged and the claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the 112(f) interpretation of “blade connecting means”, the examiner acknowledges that the specification includes “Other suitable cross-sectional shapes of the projections 115 are also encompassed in the present disclosure” in para. 0027. The examiner notes that the cylindrical shaped projection was relied upon since the “other cross-sectional shapes” are not specifically defined like the structure of the cylindrical shaped projection described in the specification and illustrated in the drawings. The examiner notes that the other cross-sectional shapes would fall under “equivalent structures thereof that functions to connect the blades to the blade carrier”.
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejections, the amendments to claims 2-4, 8, and 12-14 are acknowledged and the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sjoberg fails to disclose “wherein the blade carrier comprises a recess arranged to receive a drive pin of a dermatome such that oscillating motion of the drive pin causes reciprocating motion of the dermatome blade assembly” as required in claim 1. Applicant explains that “the main body 12 of Sjoberg does not undergo reciprocating motion caused by oscillating motion of a drive pin. Instead, in Sjoberg, four separate drive pins 25a-d are driven by four separate motors (see e.g., paragraph [0034] of Sjoberg) to confer oscillating motion independently on four separate blades 20a-d, but there is no oscillation of the main body 12 caused by the drive pins. Further, as each blade is oscillated by a separate drive pin and a separate drive motor, Sjoberg cannot be considered to disclose oscillating motion of a drive pin causing reciprocating motion of the dermatome blade assembly comprising at least two blades and a blade carrier” (see page 3 of the remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Sjoberg discloses in para. 0034 “The brackets 22a-d are arranged to hold and maintain the respective blades 20a-d in a desired position with the aid of locking means 24a-d... Furthermore, the brackets 22a-d are connected to the main body by means of reciprocating drive pins 25a-d which may be driven by respective motors (not shown) in the main body 12 as known in the art. Each motor is arranged to drive the respective drive pin 25a-d which then transfers an oscillating motion to the respective brackets 22a-d and blades 20a-d to provide the cutting action”. It is the office’s position that the main body of Sjoberg would oscillate by way of the common connection to the oscillating structures (i.e. motors, drive pins, brackets, and blades) and since the motors in which the oscillating motion originates is in the main body and that motion translates to the drive pins to cause oscillating motion of the brackets and the blades. The examiner notes that Sjoberg does not disclose or suggest any dampening structures that would prevent the main body from oscillating along with the rest of the structures in the device. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Further, the claim does not explicitly require oscillation of the main body, rather “the drive pin causes reciprocating motion of the dermatome blade assembly” and the blade assembly includes at least two blades. Thus, a single drive pin 25a causing reciprocating motion of a single blade 20a would also meet the claimed limitation because the blade 20a is part of the dermatome blade assembly; thus, at least a portion of the dermatome blade assembly is reciprocated.
Applicant argues that Barker in view of Sjoberg fails to disclose “a blade carrier with means for connecting to each of at least two blades, is oscillated by a singular drive pin, as set forth in claim 1” (see page 4 of the remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a blade carrier with means for connecting to each of at least two blades, is oscillated by a singular drive pin) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim states “wherein the blade carrier comprises a recess arranged to receive a drive pin of a dermatome such that oscillating motion of the drive pin causes reciprocating motion of the dermatome blade assembly”. According to MPEP section 2111.03, “The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004)”… "Comprising" is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim”. Even though Sjoberg includes multiple drive pins and thereby multiple recesses, the reference still comprises a blade carrier including, but not limited to, a recess arranged to receive a drive pin of a dermatome such that oscillating motion of the drive pin causes reciprocating motion of the dermatome blade assembly as claimed (see para. 0034 of Sjoberg and para. 0022, 0024 of Barker). Furthermore, “arranged to receive a drive pin of a dermatome such that oscillating motion of the drive pin causes reciprocating motion of the dermatome blade assembly” is interpreted as functional language. Therefore, the claim only structurally requires “the blade carrier comprising a recess” to meet the functional limitation. The limitation “the drive pin” is not positively claimed and is interpreted as a functional component that the recess is “arranged to receive” or capable of receiving which both Barker and Sjoberg disclose (see para. 0034 of Sjoberg and para. 0022, 0024 of Barker). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP 2114).
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 (lines 2 and 4): “aperture” should recite “throughgoing aperture” for consistency purposes.
Claim 2 (line 3): “at least one blade” should recite “the at least one blade” or “the at least one of the at least two blades”, thereby further defining the “at least one of the at least two blades” as recited in claim 1 (line 3).
Claim 3 (line 4): “the respective apertures” should recite “the respective apertures of the at least one throughgoing aperture”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a) “blade connecting means for connecting each of the at least two blades to the blade carrier” in claims 1-3. The limitation describing the “means for connecting each of the at least two blades to the blade carrier” in claim 1 fails to include sufficient structure to perform the recited function of "connecting". In the specifications, the “blade connecting means” is further defined structurally as a cylindrical projection used to connect the blades to the blade carrier in para. 0026-0027 of the instant application. However, “Other suitable cross-sectional shapes of the projections are also encompassed in the present disclosure” as stated in para. 0027 of the instant application. Therefore, the limitations will be interpreted as a cylindrical projection or any equivalent structure thereof that functions to connect the blades to the blade carrier.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sjoberg (US 20190059924).
Regarding claim 1, Sjoberg discloses a dermatome blade assembly 10 (Fig. 3, para. 0033), comprising:
at least two blades 20a-d (Fig. 2, para. 0030), each including a cutting edge 23a-d (Fig. 4b, para. 0034), a rear edge spaced from the cutting edge, and two side edges joining the cutting edge and the rear edge (see annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein at least one of the at least two blades comprises at least one throughgoing aperture (para. 0034 discloses that the blades comprise a hole or recess); and
a blade carrier (shown in Fig. 3) including a main body 12 extending in a transverse direction and blade connecting means (interpreted as locking means 24a-d, see 112(f) interpretation above) for connecting each of the at least two blades to the blade carrier (para. 0034);
wherein the blade carrier comprises a recess (shown in Fig. 4B) arranged to receive a drive pin 25a-d of a dermatome such that oscillating motion of the drive pin causes reciprocating motion of the dermatome blade assembly (para. 0034).
PNG
media_image1.png
305
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Sjoberg
Regarding claim 2, Sjoberg discloses wherein the blade connecting means (interpreted as locking means 24a-d, see 112(f) interpretation above) extend from the main body 12 in alignment with the at least one aperture on at least one blade of the at least two blades (para. 0034), wherein the blade connecting means 24a-d are arranged to be engaged with said at least one aperture for connecting said at least one blade to the blade carrier (Figs. 4a-b, para. 0034).
Regarding claim 3, Sjoberg discloses wherein the blade connecting means 24a-d of the blade carrier are in alignment with apertures of the at least one throughgoing aperture on each of the at least two blades 20a-d (para. 0034 discloses that the locking means form a snap-fit connection with the apertures on the blade and therefore must be in alignment with said apertures), wherein the blade connecting means 24a-d are arranged to be engaged with the respective apertures on each of the at least two blades 20a-d for connecting each of the at least two blades to the blade carrier (para. 0034).
Regarding claim 4, Sjoberg discloses wherein the blade connecting means 24a-d comprise at least one projection arranged to be received in the at least one through-going aperture on at least one of the at least two blades (para. 0034; The examiner notes that it is known in the art that a snap-fit connection includes a projection that snaps into an aperture to create a secure connection).
Regarding claim 6, Sjoberg discloses further comprising at least one spacer element 22b-c arranged to be mounted to the dermatome blade assembly in a position between each of the at least two blades 20a, 20d to regulate a thickness of a skin graft cut by one of the at least two blades (Figs. 4a-b, para. 0036).
Regarding claim 7, Sjoberg discloses wherein the spacer element is adjustable (para. 0036).
Regarding claim 8, Sjoberg discloses wherein a first, upper blade 20d of the at least two blades 20a-d is arranged offset from a second, lower blade 20c of the at least two blades 20a-d in a cutting direction of the dermatome blade assembly (Figs. 2, 5, 6b, para. 0030, 0037).
Regarding claim 15, Sjoberg discloses a dermatome comprising a dermatome blade assembly according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al. (US 20090157095) [hereinafter Barker] in view of Sjoberg (US 20190059924).
Regarding claim 1, Barker discloses a dermatome blade assembly 20 (Fig. 1, para. 0021), comprising:
A blade 24 (Fig. 2, para. 0021) including a cutting edge 28, a rear edge spaced from the cutting edge, and two side edges joining the cutting edge and the rear edge (see annotated Fig. 2 below, para. 0021), wherein the blade 24 comprises at least one throughgoing aperture (interpreted as the apertures that retain pins 52, 54) (Fig. 2, para. 0024); and
a blade carrier 26 including a main body extending in a transverse direction (Fig. 2, para. 0021-0022) and blade connecting means (interpreted as pins 52, 54, see 112(f) interpretation above) for connecting each of the at least two blades to the blade carrier (Fig. 2, para. 0024);
wherein the blade carrier 26 comprises a recess 34 arranged to receive a drive pin 30 of a dermatome such that oscillating motion of the drive pin causes reciprocating motion of the dermatome blade assembly (para. 0022, 0024).
PNG
media_image2.png
234
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Barker
However, Barker fails to disclose at least two blades.
Sjoberg in the same field of endeavor teaches a multi-layer dermatome comprising at least two blade 20a-d each including a cutting edge, a rear edge spaced from the cutting edge, and two side edges joining the cutting edge and the rear edge (see annotated Fig. 2 of Sjoberg above, para. 0030, 0033) for the purpose of simultaneously cutting a number of slices of skin instead of one (para. 0026).
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 blade assembly in Barker to include the at least two blades of Sjoberg in order to prevent the need for the user to perform multiple passes with the dermatome at a donor site, thereby saving time during the procedure and preventing poor healing and scarring at the donor site (para. 0007 of Sjoberg).
Regarding claim 5, modified Barker discloses wherein at least one of the at least two blades is integrally formed with or joined to the blade carrier by means of an adhesive, welding, crimping, moulding, soldering, brazing, or a combination thereof (para. 0021 of Barker).
Regarding claim 9, modified Barker discloses wherein the recess 34 of the blade carrier 26 is a through-going aperture arranged in a central position on the main body (as shown in Fig. 3 of Barker which illustrates the aperture 34 at a central position relative to the side edges of the main body of the blade carrier 26, para. 0022 of Barker).
Regarding claim 10, modified Barker discloses wherein each of the at least two blades are attached to a bottom side of the blade carrier (Figs. 3-4 illustrates the blade being attached to a bottom side of the blade carrier 26, para. 0021-0022 of Barker. The combination of Barker in view of Sjoberg would result in a product wherein each of the at least two blades of Sjoberg (Fig. 2, para. 0026, 0030, 0033 of Sjoberg) are attached to the bottom side of the blade carrier of Barker (as shown in Figs. 3-4, para. 0021-0022 of Barker).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al. (US 20090157095) [hereinafter Barker] in view of Sjoberg (US 20190059924) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Depaz (US 20180161999).
Regarding claim 11, modified Barker discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 1. However, modified Barker fails to disclose wherein at least a first, upper blade of the at least two blades is attached to a top side of the blade carrier and at least a second, lower blade of the at least two blades is attached to a bottom side of the blade carrier.
Depaz in the same field of endeavor of blade assemblies teaches a blade assembly 100 (Fig. 1) comprising at least a first, upper blade 120 of at least two blades 120, 130 is attached to a top side of a blade carrier 130 and at least a second, lower blade 140 of the at least two blades 120, 130 is attached to a bottom side of the blade carrier 130 (Fig. 1, para. 0052-0053).
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Depaz (i.e. attaching the upper blade to the top side of the blade carrier and attaching the lower blade to the bottom side of the blade carrier) to the dermatome blade assembly of modified Barker would have yielded predictable results, namely, a system that would positively interlock the pair of opposing blades in modified Barker since Depaz teaches it’s a known construction in the art (para. 0053 of Depaz).
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al. (US 20090157095) [hereinafter Barker] in view of Sjoberg (US 20190059924) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gratsias et al. (US 20070266564) [hereinafter Gratsias].
Regarding claim 12, modified Barker discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 1. Modified Barker further discloses one bottom plate 18 arranged below a lowermost blade of the at least two blades of the dermatome blade assembly (Fig. 2, para. 0021 of Barker). However, modified Barker fails to disclose further comprising at least one intermediate plate, arranged between each of the at least two blades of the dermatome blade assembly.
Gratsias teaches a razor blade assembly 3 comprising at least one intermediate plate 28, 29, arranged between each of at least two blades 25, 26 of the blade assembly (Fig. 3, para. 0031) and one bottom plate 2 arranged below the lowermost blade 25 of the blade assembly 3 (Fig. 5, para. 0102).
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Gratsias (i.e. providing spacers/intermediate plates between the at least two blades) to the dermatome blade assembly of modified Barker would have yielded predictable results, namely, the spacers would provide a way to maintain a clearance between the blades, thereby facilitating consistent blade alignment (see Fig. 5, para. 0031 of Gratsias).
Regarding claim 13, modified Barker further discloses wherein a forward-facing lower surface of the at least one intermediate plate 28, 29 of Gratsias and the bottom plate 18 of Barker comprises a central recess (see annotated Fig. 3 of Barker and Fig. 3 of Gratsias). However, modified Barker fails to disclose wherein a width of the central recess the transverse direction is shorter on the bottom plate than on the at least one intermediate plate.
A person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the central recess of the at least one intermediate plate of modified Barker, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimension. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating simply “wherein an extension of the recess in the transverse direction is shorter on the bottom plate than on the at least one intermediate plate” in para. 0019 of the instant application and there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the central recess along the transverse direction of modified Barker such that the bottom plate central recess is shorter than the central recess of the at least one intermediate plate as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
PNG
media_image3.png
145
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 Barker
PNG
media_image4.png
141
314
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Gratsias
Regarding claim 14, modified Barker discloses wherein the central recess (annotated Fig. 3 of Gratsias) in the at least one intermediate plate 28, 29 extends from a front end (interpreted as the front surface of the intermediate plate) to a rear end (interpreted as the rear surface of the intermediate plate) of the at least one intermediate plate 28, 29 to form a cavity (see Fig. 3 of Gratsias) arranged to allow passage of a skin graft cut by a blade 25, 26 of the at least two blades arranged below the at least one intermediate plate (Fig. 5 of Gratsias; The examiner notes the limitation “arranged to allow passage of a skin graft cut by a blade 25, 26 arranged below the at least one intermediate plate” is interpreted as functional language. Therefore, the limitation is not interpreted as a structural component of the claimed invention, but interpreted as a functional component that the claimed invention is capable of doing. Claim 14 is rejected in light of claim 13 (see 112(b) rejection above). The modification of claim 13 resulted in the central recess of the at least one intermediate plate being longer than the central recess of the bottom plate along the transverse direction. Since modified Barker includes all of the structure of claim 13 (as stated above) and 14 (i.e. the central recess of the at least one intermediate plate forming a cavity, see annotated Fig. 3 above of Gratsias) to necessitate the functional language, modified Barker also meets the functional limitation of the claim. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 LAUREN DUBOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-8792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30 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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/LAUREN DUBOSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/SARAH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771