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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-40 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-16 remain withdrawn from the consideration. Claim 27 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 17 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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., protein-based biopolymers and not "synthetic methacrylates", EDC/NHS crosslinking (there is an or clause, which only requires NHS or EDS), and collagen that is not in combination with a synthetic polymer (the wording “comprises” leaves room for other components to be in the material, and only requires collagen to be present in some way) are not recited in the rejected claim. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitation “said step of crosslinking said collagen solution” lacks proper antecedent basis, as there is not a “step of crosslinking said collagen solution” introduced in the claim.
Claims 18-40 are rejected as well, as they are dependent on claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140142200 A1 (hereafter --Duan--).
Regarding Claim 17, Duan discloses a method for the production of an intrastromal corneal lenticule graft for either or both Keratoconus treatment and vision-correction (see paragraphs [0012] and [0041]), configured to mimic native corneal stroma tissue by means of its optical properties, mechanical properties, permeability and interaction with corneal stromal cells (see paragraphs [0019], [0041], and [0046] denoting the lenticle can replace cornea and be placed as a corneal onlay, inlay, or underlay); wherein said method comprising steps of
a. providing at least one portion of said lenticule to comprise or to be coated by at least one collagen solution selected from a group consisting of collagen, collagen methacrylate, recombinant mammal collagen, mammal-sourced collagen and any combination thereof (see paragraph [0019] and [0041]); and,
b. processing the lenticule graft by a method selected from 3D printing, laser ablating, molding, and any combinations thereof (see paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0016], [0019], [0041]), wherein said method additionally comprises a step of lyophilizing said collagen solution prior to said step of crosslinking said collagen solution (see paragraphs [0016], [0019], and [0042]).
Regarding Claim 19, Duan discloses the method of claim 17, characterized by step of 3D printing and/or molding a collagen solution, and crosslinking the same to form a transparent hydrogel (see paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0016], [0019], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 21, Duan discloses the method of claim 17, characterized by step of centrifuging collagen solution (see paragraph [0016], [0019], and [0042]).
Regarding Claim 23, Duan discloses the method of claim 17, characterized by step of molding of said collagen solution (see paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0016], [0019], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 25, Duan discloses the method of claim 19, wherein said crosslinking is provided by admixing EDC and/or NHS molecules to said collagen solution (see paragraph [0016], [0042], and [0044]).
Regarding Claim 26, Duan discloses the method of claim 19, wherein said crosslinking is provided in a controlled temperature and humidity (see paragraphs [0043], [0073], and [0120]).
Regarding Claim 31, Duan discloses the method of claim 17, wherein said collagen solution is provided to form hydrogel with an optical refractive index which is similar to the native corneal stroma (see paragraph [0047]), thereby configured to avoid light scattering and/or reflections (see paragraph [0012]).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 17-18, 23, 29-30, and 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060241751 A1 (hereafter –Marmo--), in view of US 20140142200 A1 (hereafter --Duan--).
Regarding Claim 17, Marmo discloses a method for the production of an intrastromal corneal lenticule graft for either or both Keratoconus treatment and vision-correction (see paragraph [0063]), configured to mimic native corneal stroma tissue by means of its optical properties, mechanical properties, permeability and interaction with corneal stromal cells (see paragraph [0088]); wherein said method comprising steps of
a. providing at least one portion of said lenticule graft to comprise or to be coated by at least one collagen solution selected from a group consisting of (see paragraphs [0074] and [0088]); collagen, collagen methacrylate, recombinant mammal collagen, mammal-sourced collagen and any combination thereof (see paragraph [0074]); and,
b. processing the lenticule graft by a method selected from 3D printing, laser ablating, molding, and any combinations thereof (see paragraph [0088]).
Marmo fails to disclose wherein said method additionally comprises a step of lyophilizing said collagen solution prior to said step of crosslinking said collagen solution.
Duan discloses a method for the production of an intrastromal corneal lenticule graft for either or both Keratoconus treatment and vision-correction (see paragraphs [0012] and [0041]), configured to mimic native corneal stroma tissue by means of its optical properties, mechanical properties, permeability and interaction with corneal stromal cells (see paragraphs [0019], [0041], and [0046] denoting the lenticle can replace cornea and be placed as a corneal onlay, inlay, or underlay); wherein said method comprising steps of a. providing at least one portion of said lenticule to comprise or to be coated by at least one collagen solution selected from a group consisting of collagen, collagen methacrylate, recombinant mammal collagen, mammal-sourced collagen and any combination thereof (see paragraph [0019] and [0041]); and, b. processing the lenticule graft by a method selected from 3D printing, laser ablating, molding, and any combinations thereof (see paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0016], [0019], [0041]). Duan teaches wherein said method additionally comprises a step of lyophilizing said collagen solution prior to said step of crosslinking said collagen solution (see paragraphs [0016], [0019], and [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the method to further comprise a step of lyophilizing said collagen solution prior to said step of crosslinking said collagen solution, as by doing so would produce dry, uniform, collagen powder with greatly reduced small molecule contaminants, as collagen solutions prepared from such collagen powder have very precise, repeatable collagen concentrations and reaction properties that are essential to two-stage (and more generally, multi-stage) crosslinking methods (see paragraph [0015]).
Regarding Claim 18, Marmo as modified discloses the method of claim 17, additionally comprising step of providing at least one portion of said lenticule to comprise or to be coated by at least one selected from a group consisting Keratocytes and/or stem cells and any combination thereof (see paragraphs [0018], [0064] and [0085]).
Regarding Claim 23, Marmo as modified discloses the method of claim 17, characterized by step of molding of said collagen solution (see paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 29, Marmo as modified discloses the method of claim 17, wherein said molding is provided by designated tool, having the predefined geometry and surface roughness (see paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 30, Marmo as modified discloses the method of claim 29, wherein said tool is made of a material selected from a group consisting of composite material, glass, PP, PE, PET, PDMS, PTFE, FEP, and any combination thereof (see paragraph [0088] denoting that the mold could be made of ceramics, which is composite material).
Regarding Claim 34, Marmo as modified discloses the method of claim 17, comprising step ablating said lenticule by laser to shape and size (see paragraph [0088] denoting that the lends may be shaped through ablation).
Claim 17-20, 22, 24-25, 31, 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200337830 A1 (hereafter –Peyman--), in view of US 20140142200 A1 (hereafter --Duan--).
Regarding Claim 17, Peyman discloses a method for the production of an intrastromal corneal lenticule graft for either or both Keratoconus treatment and vision-correction (see paragraphs [0127] and Abstract), configured to mimic native corneal stroma tissue by means of its optical properties, mechanical properties, permeability and interaction with corneal stromal cells (see paragraph [0110] and Abstract); wherein said method comprising steps of
a. providing at least one portion of said lenticule graft to comprise or to be coated by at least one collagen solution selected from a group consisting of collagen, collagen methacrylate, recombinant mammal collagen, mammal-sourced collagen and any combination thereof (see paragraphs [0150], [0153], and [0154]); and,
b. processing the lenticule graft by a method selected from 3D printing, laser ablating, molding, and any combinations thereof (see Abstract and paragraph [0111-0114]).
Peyman fails to disclose wherein said method additionally comprises a step of lyophilizing said collagen solution prior to said step of crosslinking said collagen solution.
Duan discloses a method for the production of an intrastromal corneal lenticule graft for either or both Keratoconus treatment and vision-correction (see paragraphs [0012] and [0041]), configured to mimic native corneal stroma tissue by means of its optical properties, mechanical properties, permeability and interaction with corneal stromal cells (see paragraphs [0019], [0041], and [0046] denoting the lenticle can replace cornea and be placed as a corneal onlay, inlay, or underlay); wherein said method comprising steps of a. providing at least one portion of said lenticule to comprise or to be coated by at least one collagen solution selected from a group consisting of collagen, collagen methacrylate, recombinant mammal collagen, mammal-sourced collagen and any combination thereof (see paragraph [0019] and [0041]); and, b. processing the lenticule graft by a method selected from 3D printing, laser ablating, molding, and any combinations thereof (see paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0016], [0019], [0041]). Duan teaches wherein said method additionally comprises a step of lyophilizing said collagen solution prior to said step of crosslinking said collagen solution (see paragraphs [0016], [0019], and [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the method to further comprise a step of lyophilizing said collagen solution prior to said step of crosslinking said collagen solution, as by doing so would produce dry, uniform, collagen powder with greatly reduced small molecule contaminants, as collagen solutions prepared from such collagen powder have very precise, repeatable collagen concentrations and reaction properties that are essential to two-stage (and more generally, multi-stage) crosslinking methods (see paragraph [0015]).
Regarding Claim 18, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 17, additionally comprising step of providing at least one portion of said lenticule to comprise or to be coated by at least one selected from a group consisting Keratocytes and/or stem cells and any combination thereof (see paragraphs [0110]).
Regarding Claim 19, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 17, characterized by step of 3D printing and/or molding a collagen solution (see Abstract), and crosslinking the same to form a transparent hydrogel (see paragraph [0110], [0152], and [0157]).
Regarding Claim 20, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 17, characterized by step of concentrating collagen solution to a predefined value in the range of about 1 to about 15% w/w (see paragraphs [0203] and [0204]).
Regarding Claim 22, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 17, characterized by step of 3D printing the collagen solution to a predefined shape (see Abstract, see also paragraphs [0109], [0157], and [0191]).
Regarding Claim 24, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 19, wherein said crosslinking is provided by admixing photo initiator to said collagen solution and applying light on it (see paragraph [0022], [0106]).
Regarding Claim 25, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 19, wherein said crosslinking is provided by admixing EDC and/or NHS molecules to said collagen solution (see paragraph [0107]).
Regarding Claim 31, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 17, wherein said collagen solution is provided to form hydrogel with an optical refractive index which is similar to the native corneal stroma (see paragraph [0174]), thereby configured to avoid light scattering and/or reflections (see paragraph [0151]).
Regarding Claim 34, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 17, comprising step ablating said lenticule graft by laser to shape and size (see paragraph [0125] denoting that the lends may be shaped through ablation).
Regarding Claim 35, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 34, comprising scanning said lenticule graft by an OCT (see paragraph [0204]), simultaneously to said step of ablating, hence forming a closed-loop feedback mechanism (see paragraph [0221]).
Regarding Claim 36, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 34, wherein said laser system comprises excimer and/or a femtosecond laser (see paragraphs [0125] and [0146]).
Regarding Claim 37, Peyman as modified discloses a method of grafting an intrastromal corneal lenticule graft as defined in claim 17, comprising a step of using a laser system, including an Excimer Laser and/or a femtosecond laser (see paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Claim 38, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 37, comprising a step of shaping said intrastromal lenticule graft, by means of laser within patient's cornea, after grafting the same (see paragraph [0125]).
Regarding Claim 39, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 37, comprising step of optimizing depth and position within the cornea, which was optimized based on OCT scans and mechanical properties measurement of the cornea (see paragraph [0221]).
Regarding Claim 40, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 37, wherein said of grafting said lenticule graft is provided before or after crosslinking said collagen solution (see paragraph [0110], [0152], and [0157]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140142200 A1 (hereafter --Duan--), as applied to claim 31 above, in view of US 7476398 B1 (hereafter –Doillon--).
Regarding Claim 32, Duan discloses the method of claim 31.
Duan fails to disclose wherein at least one of the following is held true: a. said solution is configured to form a hydrogel characterized by elastic modulus ranging between about 5OkPA to about 13MPa; c. said solution is configured to form a hydrogel characterized with permeability to glucose, oxygen and proteins which is at least about 50% of the permeability of native corneal stroma tissue; d. said solution is configured to form a hydrogel which at least partially blocks UV light.
Doillon discloses a method for the production of an intrastromal corneal lenticule graft for either or both Keratoconus treatment and vision-correction (see Abstract, see also claim 1), configured to mimic native corneal stroma tissue by means of its optical properties, mechanical properties, permeability and interaction with corneal stromal cells (see column 5, lines 14-18, see also column 5, lines 30-40, see also ); wherein said method comprising steps of a. providing at least one portion of said lenticule graft to comprise or to be coated by at least one collagen solution selected from a group consisting of collagen, collagen methacrylate, recombinant mammal collagen, mammal-sourced collagen and any combination thereof (see column 5, lines 41-59) and, b. processing the lenticule graft by a method selected from 3D printing, laser ablating, molding, and any combinations thereof (see column 4, lines 12-15, see also column 7, lines 50-53, see also column 9, lines 22-31). Doillon teaches wherein at least one of the following is held true: a. said solution is configured to form a hydrogel characterized by elastic modulus ranging between about 50kPA to about 13MPa (see column 3, lines 33-40). [b. said solution is configured to form a hydrogel characterized with permeability to glucose, oxygen and proteins which is at least about 50% of the permeability of native corneal stroma tissue; c. said solution is configured to form a hydrogel which at least partially blocks UV light.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the solution of Duan to be configured to form a hydrogel characterized by elastic modulus ranging between about 50kPA to about 13MPa, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (and therefore material stiffness (elastic modulus)) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 17, 19, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200046884 A1 (hereafter –Griffith--), in view of US 20140142200 A1 (hereafter --Duan--).
Regarding Claim 17, Griffith discloses a method for the production of an intrastromal corneal lenticule graft for either or both Keratoconus treatment and vision-correction (see paragraphs [0021] and [0091]) configured to mimic native corneal stroma tissue by means of its optical properties, mechanical properties, permeability and interaction with corneal stromal cells (see paragraph [0075], [0218], and [0256]); wherein said method comprising steps of a. providing at least one portion of said lenticule graft to comprise or to be coated by at least one collagen solution selected from a group consisting of (see paragraph [0081]); collagen, collagen methacrylate, recombinant mammal collagen, mammal-sourced collagen and any combination thereof (see paragraph [0081]); and, b. processing the lenticule graft by a method selected from 3D printing, laser ablating, molding, and any combinations thereof (see paragraph [0027]).
Griffith fails to disclose wherein said method additionally comprises a step of lyophilizing said collagen solution prior to said step of crosslinking said collagen solution.
Duan discloses a method for the production of an intrastromal corneal lenticule graft for either or both Keratoconus treatment and vision-correction (see paragraphs [0012] and [0041]), configured to mimic native corneal stroma tissue by means of its optical properties, mechanical properties, permeability and interaction with corneal stromal cells (see paragraphs [0019], [0041], and [0046] denoting the lenticle can replace cornea and be placed as a corneal onlay, inlay, or underlay); wherein said method comprising steps of a. providing at least one portion of said lenticule to comprise or to be coated by at least one collagen solution selected from a group consisting of collagen, collagen methacrylate, recombinant mammal collagen, mammal-sourced collagen and any combination thereof (see paragraph [0019] and [0041]); and, b. processing the lenticule graft by a method selected from 3D printing, laser ablating, molding, and any combinations thereof (see paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0016], [0019], [0041]). Duan teaches wherein said method additionally comprises a step of lyophilizing said collagen solution prior to said step of crosslinking said collagen solution (see paragraphs [0016], [0019], and [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the method to further comprise a step of lyophilizing said collagen solution prior to said step of crosslinking said collagen solution, as by doing so would produce dry, uniform, collagen powder with greatly reduced small molecule contaminants, as collagen solutions prepared from such collagen powder have very precise, repeatable collagen concentrations and reaction properties that are essential to two-stage (and more generally, multi-stage) crosslinking methods (see paragraph [0015]).
Regarding Claim 19, Griffith as modified discloses the method of claim 17, characterized by step of 3D printing and/or molding a collagen solution (see Abstract), and crosslinking the same to form a transparent hydrogel (see paragraphs [0173], [0164], [0180], and [0113]).
Regarding Claim 26, Griffith as modified discloses the method of claim 19, wherein said crosslinking is provided in a controlled temperature and humidity (see paragraphs [0173], [0164], [0180], and [0113]).
Regarding Claim 28, Griffith as modified discloses the method of claim 19 wherein said crosslinking is provided in a controlled gas mixture environment, other than air (see paragraphs [0173], [0164], [0180], and [0113]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200337830 A1 (hereafter –Peyman--) in view of US 20140142200 A1 (hereafter --Duan--), as applied to claim 17 above, in view of US 5067961 A (hereafter --Kelman--).
Regarding Claim 21, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 17.
Peyman fails to disclose characterized by step of centrifuging collagen solution.
Kelman discloses a corneal implant and method of preparing said implant (see Abstract). Kelman teaches characterized by step of centrifuging collagen solution (see column 2, lines 36-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the method of Peyman to further include centrifuging collagen solution, as by doing so would enable recovering the fibrous fractions of the collagen to form the implant (see column 2, lines 36-45).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200337830 A1 (hereafter –Peyman--) in view of US 20140142200 A1 (hereafter --Duan--), as applied to claim 19 above, in view of US 20190307551 A1 (hereafter --Peyman #3--).
Regarding Claim 33, Peyman as modified discloses the method of claim 19.
Peyman fails to disclose additionally comprising step of marking said transparent crosslinked hydrogel for the correct orientation by one or more members of a group consisting of a laser engraver, mechanical press, pigmented ink, or a combination thereof.
Peyman #2 discloses a corneal implant and method of preparing said implant (see Abstract). Peyman #2 teaches additionally comprising step of marking said transparent crosslinked hydrogel for the correct orientation by one or more members of a group consisting of a laser engraver, mechanical press, pigmented ink, or a combination thereof (see paragraph [0568]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the method of Peyman to further additionally comprising step of marking said transparent crosslinked hydrogel for the correct orientation by one or more members of a group consisting of a laser engraver, mechanical press, pigmented ink, or a combination thereof, as by doing so would promote ease of implantation (see paragraph [0568]).
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 PARIS MARIE BLASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 a.m. - 7 p.m. ET.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 571-272-9062. 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.
/PARIS MARIE BLASS/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights