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 .
This action is in response to the filing on 1/26/2023. Since the initial filing, no claims have been added, amended or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites the limitation of “the treatment head further comprises an internal motion unit (IMU)” in line 1-2. However, this limitation was previously introduced in preceding claim 1 line 14. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Dependent claims inherit the rejection of the preceding claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riveron (US 2020/0390632) in view of Katz (US 2023/0080370), Meisinger (US 2024/0108537), Stefan (US 2011/0150564) and Lathrop (US 5372147).
In regards to claim 1, Riveron discloses an impulse treatment device (device 100) for use with a cart (base 136), the impulse treatment device comprising an articulating holding arm (connection 112), an impulse treatment head (treatment interface 110), wherein the articulating holding arm includes: a proximal joint for rotational attachment to the cart (see Annotated Fig 1) and which includes a ball joint which includes a ball, a socket (joints may be lockable ball and socket joints, paragraph 31), a proximal section attached to the proximal joint and a distal section that includes a distal end (see Annotated Fig 1), a ball joint between the distal section and the proximal section, wherein the ball joint includes a ball, a socket (joints may be lockable ball and socket joints, paragraph 31), wherein the articulating holding arm has a full range of motion and can be locked in any orientation (paragraph 101, see Annotated Fig 1); the impulse treatment head attached to the distal end of the distal section of the articulating holding arm (see Annotated Fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1
Riveron does not disclose a stylus, the impulse treatment head includes: a distal end; a proximal end; a body therebetween; an actuator for driving the stylus in a linear direction; an internal motion unit (IMU); the stylus is slidably, releasably retained in the impulse treatment head and extends outward at the distal end and is releasably coupled to the actuator; a touch screen on the proximal end, the ball joint is a pair of ball joints, a bent arm extending between and attached to each of the balls of the pair of ball joints and the proximal section defines a bore; and distal section defines a bore.
However, Katz teaches an impulse treatment device having a stylus (applicator heads), the impulse treatment head includes: a distal end; a proximal end; a body therebetween (Fig 1); an actuator for driving the stylus in a linear direction (paragraph 79 and 95); an internal motion unit (IMU) (paragraph 278), the stylus is slidably, releasably retained in the impulse treatment head and extends outward at the distal end and is releasably coupled to the actuator (paragraph 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron wherein the impulse treatment device having a stylus, the impulse treatment head includes: a distal end; a proximal end; a body therebetween; an actuator for driving the stylus in a linear direction; an internal motion unit (IMU), the stylus is slidably, releasably retained in the impulse treatment head and extends outward at the distal end and is releasably coupled to the actuator as taught by Katz as these are known structures of impulse treatment heads which may be used to apply treatment to a user.
Further, Riveron teaches a treatment interface configured with data collection elements as well as one or more outputs, readouts, and displays or other data collection elements for reporting the data (paragraph 133).
Additionally, Meisinger teaches an impulse treatment device having a touch screen on the proximal end of the impulse treatment head (touch screen 18, paragraph 38, Fig 6).
Therefore, 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 display of Riveron to have a touch screen on the proximal end of the impulse treatment head as taught by Meisinger as this would allow easy access to the touch screen.
Additionally, Stefan teaches an articulated arm wherein the ball joint is a pair of ball joints, a bent arm extending between and attached to each of the balls of the pair of ball joints and the proximal section defines a bore; and the distal section defines a bore (see Annotated Fig 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
374
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron wherein the ball joint is a pair of ball joints, a bent arm extending between and attached to each of the balls of the pair of ball joints and the proximal section defines a bore; and the distal section defines a bore as taught by Stefan as this would allow greater variation and maneuverability to the arm sections to reach the required position.
Further still, Lathrop teaches and articulated arm having ball and socket joints with a spring to bias the ball to a locked position, and a linear solenoid to release the ball (column 8 line 65 – column 9 line 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron to have ball and socket joints with a spring to bias the ball to a locked position, and a linear solenoid to release the ball as taught by Lathrop as this is a known locking structure which would ensure the joints are maintained in the desired orientation.
In regards to claim 2, Riveron in view of Katz, Meisinger, Stefan and Lathrop teaches the device of claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein the articulating holding arm further comprises a middle section (Riveron: see Annotated Fig 1) which defines a bore; a pair of ball joints between the middle section and the proximal section (Stefan: see Annotated Fig 1), wherein the ball joints each include a ball, a spring to bias the ball to a locked position, and a linear solenoid to release the ball (Lathrop: column 8 line 65 – column 9 line 14) and a bent arm extending between and attached to each of the balls of the pair of ball joints (Stefan: see Annotated Fig 1).
In regards to claim 3, Riveron in view of Katz, Meisinger, Stefan and Lathrop teaches the device of claim 2.
While the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the impulse treatment head is attached at right angles to the distal section, as the impulse head is attached via a movable joint, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron wherein the impulse treatment head is attached at right angles to the distal section so as to best suit the ability to apply therapy to the user.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riveron (US 2020/0390632) in view of Katz (US 2023/0080370), Meisinger (US 2024/0108537), Stefan (2011/0150564) and Lathrop (US 5372147) as applied above and in further view of Giraud (EP 2922518).
In regards to claim 4, Riveron in view of Katz, Meisinger, Stefan and Lathrop teaches the device of claim 3.
Riveron does not disclose wherein the impulse treatment head further comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) transponder and the stylus further comprises an RFID tag.
However, Giraud teaches wherein the impulse treatment head further comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) transponder and the stylus further comprises an RFID tag (paragraph 81 and 113 and 142).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron wherein the impulse treatment head further comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) transponder and the stylus further comprises an RFID tag as taught by Giraud as this would ensure that only the appropriate styluses would be attached to the head.
In regards to claim 5, Riveron in view of Katz, Meisinger, Stefan, Lathrop and Giraud teaches the device of claim 4 and the combination further teaches wherein the treatment head further comprises an internal motion unit (IMU) (Katz: paragraph 278 and 295-297).
In regards to claim 6, Riveron in view of Katz, Meisinger, Stefan, Lathrop and Giraud teaches the device of claim 5 and Katz further teaches wherein the treatment head further comprises firmware, the firmware in electronic communication with the IMU and configured to determine an orientation of the stylus and calculate a difference between the orientation and an angle of attack (firmware, paragraph 298, IMU, 295-297).
In regards to claim 7, Riveron in view of Katz, Meisinger, Stefan, Lathrop and Giraud teaches the device of claim 6.
While Riveron teaches therapy applied at a desired angle (paragraph 4 and 50) and the device being controllable to adjust said angle (paragraph 100 and 135) and display of treatment parameters (paragraph 133), it does not teach wherein the treatment head includes a touchscreen on the proximal end for adjusting and displaying the angle of attack.
However, Meisinger teaches a touchscreen which provides display and control of treatment parameters (paragraph 38 and 52).
Further, Katz teaches detection and monitoring of angle during application of therapy (paragraph 278).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron wherein the treatment head includes a touchscreen on the proximal end for adjusting and displaying the angle of attack as taught by Meisinger and Katz and this would allow for an easily accessible and usable means by which to control the application of therapy to best suit the patients needs.
In regards to claim 8, Riveron in view of Katz, Meisinger, Stefan, Lathrop and Giraud teaches the device of claim 7.
While Riveron does not explicitly teach the controller in electrical communication with the linear solenoids of the ball joints, it does teach wherein the locking of the joints may be electrically controlled (paragraph 133 and 135).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron to have the controller in electrical communication with the linear solenoids of the ball joints as this would allow the locking elements to be more easily controlled.
Riveron does not disclose wherein the short distal section further comprises at least one controller.
However, while the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the distal section further comprises at least one controller, Meisinger teaches a controller associated with the impulse treatment head (paragraph 38). While not a part of the distal section, minorly shifting the position of the controller, absent any criticality to the exact location, would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as this would be a simple rearrangement of parts and an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP: 2144.04VI C).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riveron (US 2020/0390632) in view of Katz (US 2023/0080370), Meisinger (US 2024/0108537), Stefan (2011/0150564), Lathrop (US 5372147) and Giraud (EP 2922518) as applied above and in further view of Ford (US 2022/0395427).
In regards to claim 9, Riveron in view of Katz, Meisinger, Stefan, Lathrop and Giraud teaches the device of claim 8.
Riveron does not disclose wherein the impulse treatment head is releasably attached to the distal end of the distal section.
However, Ford teaches an impulse treatment head (massage gun 102) attached to an arm (massage cane 104) that is releasably attached to the distal end of the distal section of the arm (paragraph 33, Fig 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron wherein the impulse treatment head is releasably attached to the distal end of the distal section as taught by Ford as this would allow the device to be removed and replaced as needed to suit the needs of the user.
In regards to claim 10, Riveron in view of Katz, Meisinger, Stefan, Lathrop, Giraud and Ford teaches the device of claim 9 and Ford further teaches wherein a release mechanism for the impulse treatment head is located on the distal section (paragraph 33).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riveron (US 2020/0390632) in view of Stefan (2011/0150564) and Lathrop (US 5372147).
In regards to claim 11, Riveron discloses an articulating holding arm for use with a medical treatment device, the articulating holding arm comprising: a proximal joint for rotational attachment to a support and which includes a ball joint, the ball joint including a ball, a socket (joints may be lockable ball and socket joints, paragraph 31, see Annotated Fig 1), a long proximal section, a short distal section (see Annotated Fig 1),a ball joint between the short distal section and the long proximal section, wherein the ball joint includes a ball, a socket (joints may be lockable ball and socket joints, paragraph 31), wherein the articulating holding arm has a full range of motion and can be locked in any orientation (paragraph 101).
Riveron does not disclose wherein the proximal section defines a bore and is attached to the proximal joint; the distal section defines a bore and includes a distal end; and a pair of ball joints, a bent arm extending between and attached to each of the balls of the pair of ball joints and a spring to bias the ball to a locked position, and a linear solenoid to release the ball.
However, Stefan teaches and articulated arm having the proximal section defines a bore and is attached to the proximal joint; the distal section defines a bore and includes a distal end; and a pair of ball joints, a bent arm extending between and attached to each of the balls of the pair of ball joints (see Annotated Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron wherein the proximal section defines a bore and is attached to the proximal joint; the distal section defines a bore and includes a distal end; and a pair of ball joints, a bent arm extending between and attached to each of the balls of the pair of ball joints as taught by Stefan as this would allow greater variation and maneuverability to the arm sections to reach the required position.
Further, Lanthrop teaches an articulated arm having ball and socket joints a spring to bias the ball to a locked position, and a linear solenoid to release the ball (column 8 line 65 – column 9 line 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron to have ball and socket joints with a spring to bias the ball to a locked position, and a linear solenoid to release the ball as taught by Lathrop as this is a known locking structure which would ensure the joints are maintained in the desired orientation.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riveron (US 2020/0390632) in view of Stefan (2011/0150564) and Lathrop (US 5372147) as applied above and in further view of Whitman (US 2009/0215004).
In regards to claim 12, Riveron in view of Stefan and Lathrop teaches the device of claim 11.
Riveron does not disclose wherein the ball joints further comprise an O-ring, the O-ring disposed between the ball and the socket.
However, Whitman teaches and articulated arm having ball and socket joints wherein the ball joints further comprise an O-ring, the O-ring disposed between the ball and the socket (paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron wherein the ball joints further comprise an O-ring, the O-ring disposed between the ball and the socket as taught by Whiteman as this would provide friction adjustability and smoothness to the motion of the ball against the socker (Whiteman: paragraph 31).
In regards to claim 13, Riveron in view of Stefan, Lanthrop and Whiteman teaches the device of claim 12 and the combination further teaches further comprising a long middle section (Riveron: see Annotated Fig 1) which defines a bore; a pair of ball joints between the long middle section and the long proximal section (Stefan: see Annotated Fig 1), wherein the ball joints each include a ball, a spring to bias the ball to a locked position, and a linear solenoid to release the ball (Lathrop: column 8 line 65 – column 9 line 14); and a bent arm extending between and attached to each of the balls of the pair of ball joints (Stefan: see Annotated Fig 1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riveron (US 2020/0390632) in view of Stefan (2011/0150564), Lathrop (US 5372147) and Whitman (US 2009/0215004) as applied above and in further view of Meisinger (US 2024/0108537).
In regards to claim 14, Riveron in view of Stefan, Lanthrop and Whiteman teaches the device of claim 12.
While Riveron does not explicitly teach the controller in electrical communication with the linear solenoids of the ball joints, it does teach wherein the locking of the joints may be electrically controlled (paragraph 133 and 135).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron to have the controller in electrical communication with the linear solenoids of the ball joints as this would allow the locking elements to be more easily controlled.
Riveron does not disclose wherein the short distal section further comprises at least one controller.
However, while the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the short distal section further comprises at least one controller, Meisinger teaches a controller associated with the impulse treatment head (paragraph 38). While not a part of the short distal section, minorly shifting the position of the controller, absent any criticality to the exact location, would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as this would be a simple rearrangement of parts and an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP: 2144.04VI C).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riveron (US 2020/0390632) in view of Stefan (2011/0150564), Lathrop (US 5372147), Whitman (US 2009/0215004) and Meisinger (US 2024/0108537) as applied above and in further view of Ford (US 2022/0395427).
In regards to claim 15, Riveron in view of Stefan, Lanthrop, Whiteman and Meisinger teaches the device of claim 14.
Riveron does not disclose wherein the distal end of the short distal section includes a retention mechanism for retaining a medical device.
However, Ford teaches wherein the distal end of the short distal section includes a retention mechanism for retaining a medical device (massage gun 102 attached to distal section of cane 104, paragraph 33, Fig 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron wherein the distal end of the short distal section includes a retention mechanism for retaining a medical device as taught by Ford as this would allow the device to be removed and replaced as needed to suit the needs of the user.
In regards to claim 16, Riveron in view of Stefan, Lanthrop, Whiteman, Meisinger and Ford teaches the device of claim 15 and Ford further teaches wherein a release mechanism for the retention mechanism is located on the short distal section (paragraph 33).
In regards to claim 17, Riveron in view of Stefan, Lanthrop, Whiteman, Meisinger and Ford teaches the device of claim 16 and Riveron further discloses wherein the proximal joint is rotatably and articulately mounted to a mounting bracket which is configured to retain the articulating holding arm on a support (see Annotated Fig 1).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riveron (US 2020/0390632) in view of Katz (US 2023/0080370) and Meisinger (US 2024/0108537).
In regards to claim 18, Riveron discloses an impulse treatment system (device 100) for use with a cart (base 136), the impulse treatment system comprising, an articulating holding arm (connection 112), an impulse treatment head (treatment interface 110), a computing device (tablet computer 200, paragraph 133), wherein the articulating holding arm includes a proximal section, a middle section and a distal section and is configured to have a full range of motion (paragraph 101, see Annotated Fig 1), to be lockable in any orientation and to releasably retain the impulse treatment head on the distal section (joints may be lockable, paragraph 31).
Riveron does not disclose a stylus, the impulse treatment head includes a proximal end, a distal end, an actuator for driving the stylus in a linear direction, firmware, a touchscreen in electronic communication with the firmware, the touchscreen located on the proximal end, and an IMU in electronic communication with the firmware, wherein the firmware is configured to record and report a treatment vector to the computing device; the computing device includes software which is configured for calibrating and training the firmware and is in wired or wireless communication with the firmware in the impulse treatment head; and the stylus is slidably, releasably retained in the impulse treatment head and extends outward at the distal end and is releasably coupled to the actuator.
However, Katz teaches an impulse treatment device having a stylus (applicator heads), the impulse treatment head includes: a distal end; a proximal end; a body therebetween (Fig 1); an actuator for driving the stylus in a linear direction (paragraph 79 and 95); firmware (firmware, paragraph 298); an internal motion unit (IMU) in electronic communication with the firmware (paragraph 278 and 295-297), wherein the firmware is configured to record and report a treatment vector to the computing device (paragraph 279); the computing device includes software which is configured for calibrating and training the firmware and is in wired or wireless communication with the firmware in the impulse treatment head (paragraph 279); and the stylus is slidably, releasably retained in the impulse treatment head and extends outward at the distal end and is releasably coupled to the actuator (paragraph 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron a stylus, the impulse treatment head includes a proximal end, a distal end, an actuator for driving the stylus in a linear direction, firmware, and an IMU in electronic communication with the firmware, wherein the firmware is configured to record and report a treatment vector to the computing device; the computing device includes software which is configured for calibrating and training the firmware and is in wired or wireless communication with the firmware in the impulse treatment head; and the stylus is slidably, releasably retained in the impulse treatment head and extends outward at the distal end and is releasably coupled to the actuator as taught by Katz as these are known structures of impulse treatment heads which may be control and refine the device and therapy used to apply treatment to a user.
Further, Meisinger teaches an impulse treatment device having a touchscreen in electronic communication with the firmware, the touchscreen located on the proximal end of the impulse treatment head (touch screen 18 and controller in treatment head, paragraph 38, Fig 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riveron to have a touchscreen in electronic communication with the firmware, the touchscreen located on the proximal end of the impulse treatment head as taught by Meisinger as this would allow easy access to the touch screen and control of the device.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 2023/0080370) in view of Meisinger (US 2024/0108537).
In regards to claim 19, Katz discloses a use of an impulse treatment system for the treatment of a patient, the impulse treatment system comprising a handheld impulse treatment head (massage applicator 100), a stylus (applicator heads) and a computing device (tablet computer 200), the handheld impulse treatment head including: a distal end; a proximal end; a body therebetween (Fig 1); an actuator for driving the stylus in a linear direction (paragraph 79 and 95); an IMU (paragraph 278), firmware (paragraph 298) and a wireless radio (paragraph 216); the stylus is slidably, releasably retained in the handheld impulse treatment head and extends outward at the distal end and is releasably coupled to the actuator (paragraph 107); and the computing device includes a database of patient treatment vectors and is in wireless communication with the firmware in the handheld impulse treatment head (paragraph 298-299), wherein: the computing device provides a treatment vector to the firmware in the handheld impulse treatment head; a user positions the handheld impulse treatment head on the patient (paragraph 279); the user aligns the treatment vector by viewing the display of the handheld impulse treatment head and adjusting the position of the handheld impulse treatment head (paragraph 290); the user selects a treatment protocol; and the patient is treated (paragraph 220 and 270).
Katz does not disclose a touch screen on the proximal end of the treatment head.
Further, Meisinger teaches an impulse treatment device having a touch screen on the proximal end of the impulse treatment head (touch screen 18, paragraph 38, Fig 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Katz to have a touch screen on the proximal end of the impulse treatment head as taught by Meisinger as this would allow easy access to the touch screen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785