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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 7, 2026 has been entered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holman et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0406012 – “Holman”).
Regarding Claim 1, Holman discloses:
A method for treating rhinosinusitis (Holman paragraph [0065], “Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) can be inflammation of paranasal sinuses”), the method comprising:
inserting a tubular spray device (Holman FIG. 3B, medical device 200) into an opening (Holman FIG. 3B, sinus ostium 236) leading to a target area of nose and paranasal sinuses (Holman FIG. 3B, sinus cavity 234);
sending a gas into the target area through the spray device to increase a positive pressure inside the target area, to generate a flow of gas from the target area toward the opening which spurts the gas out from the opening of the target area and expels deposits from the target area (Holman paragraph [0072], “One or more fluids can be delivered to the medical device 200. The fluid(s) can include a liquid or a gas. The fluid can include any suitable fluid. For example, the fluid can include saline or air, such as for flushing mucus out of the sinus cavity, for aerating the sinus cavity, for cleansing the sinus cavity, for treating inflammation, and/or for lubricating dry sinus passages, or other cavity in which the medical device 200 can be inserted”; see also Holman FIG. 3B dispenser and Holman paragraph [0077], “dispenser 240 can be shown as being a syringe in FIG. 3B, but can be a gas cylinder, squeeze pump, hand-held dispenser with or without triggers, buttons or other actuators, or any other suitable dispenser in alternate embodiments”. Examiner interprets dispenser 240 as generating positive pressure that exits from medical device 200 into sinus cavity 234 in Holman Fig. 3B; see also Holman paragraph [0084], “The cleansing agent can include a saline liquid or a gas that flows across the walls of the sinus cavity 234 to cleanse the sinus cavity 234. The cleansing agent can flow out of the sinus cavity 234, through the nasal cavity 232, and into a throat or out of a nose.”); and
spraying a drug into the target area through the spray device (Holman paragraph [0072], “The fluid can also be…nitrous oxide for mild sedation during treatment”).
Regarding Claim 2, Holman discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Holman further discloses before inserting the spray device into the target area, inserting the spray device up to the opening to the target area or the vicinity thereof (Holman FIG. 4, block 256, “positioning the distal end of the delivery device near a sinus ostium”) while
observing the nose and paranasal sinuses with an endoscope (Holman paragraph [0083], “An endoscope can be inserted in the nostril 230 to visualize the nasal cavity 232, the sinus cavity 234, and/or the sinus ostium 236, or other structure around the medical device 200.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Holman teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Holman further discloses wherein the inserting the spray device into the target area is performed while observing the target area with the endoscope (Holman paragraph [0083], “An endoscope can be inserted in the nostril 230 to visualize the nasal cavity 232, the sinus cavity 234, and/or the sinus ostium 236, or other structure around the medical device 200.”).
Regarding Claim 10 Holman discloses a method for treating rhinosinusitis (Holman paragraph [0065], “Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) can be inflammation of paranasal sinuses”), the method comprising:
inserting a tubular spray device (Holman FIG. 3B, medical device 200) into an opening (Holman FIG. 3B, sinus ostium 236) leading to a target area of nose and paranasal sinuses (Holman FIG. 3B, sinus cavity 234); and
sending a gas and a drug simultaneously (Holman paragraph [0095], “The fluid can be a cleansing agent used to cleanse the sinus cavity 234, including a saline or gas. The fluid can also be a therapeutic fluid, for example a therapeutic fluid including a therapeutic drug.”) into an opening (Holman FIG. 3B, sinus ostium 236) leading to the target area through the spray device to increase a positive pressure inside the target area, to generate a flow of the gas from the target area toward the opening which spurts the gas out from the opening of the target area such that the drug is sprayed inside the target area while expelling deposits from the target area (Holman paragraph [0072], “One or more fluids can be delivered to the medical device 200. The fluid(s) can include a liquid or a gas. The fluid can include any suitable fluid. For example, the fluid can include saline or air, such as for flushing mucus out of the sinus cavity, for aerating the sinus cavity, for cleansing the sinus cavity, for treating inflammation, and/or for lubricating dry sinus passages, or other cavity in which the medical device 200 can be inserted”; see also Holman FIG. 3B dispenser and Holman paragraph [0077], “dispenser 240 can be shown as being a syringe in FIG. 3B, but can be a gas cylinder, squeeze pump, hand-held dispenser with or without triggers, buttons or other actuators, or any other suitable dispenser in alternate embodiments”. Examiner interprets dispenser 240 as generating positive pressure that exits from medical device 200 into sinus cavity 234 in Holman Fig. 3B; see also Holman paragraph [0084], “The cleansing agent can include a saline liquid or a gas that flows across the walls of the sinus cavity 234 to cleanse the sinus cavity 234. The cleansing agent can flow out of the sinus cavity 234, through the nasal cavity 232, and into a throat or out of a nose.”).
Regarding Claim 11, Holman discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Holman further discloses wherein the sending of the gas into the target area through the spray device further comprises: inserting a distal tip of the spray device into the opening; and the flow of the gas generated from the target area toward the opening which spurts the gas out from an opening of the target area and expels deposits from the target area is between an interior of the opening and an exterior of the spray device (Holman Fig. 5G, showing medical device 200 passing through sinus ostium 236; Holman paragraph [0072], “fluid can include saline or air, such as for flushing mucus out of the sinus cavity”).
Regarding Claim 12, Holman discloses the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Holman further discloses wherein the sending of the gas into the target area through the spray device further comprises: inserting a distal tip of the spray device into the opening; and the flow of the gas generated from the target area toward the opening which spurts the gas out from the opening of the target area and expels deposits from the target area is between an interior of the opening and an exterior of the spray device (Holman Fig. 5G, showing medical device 200 passing through sinus ostium 236; Holman paragraph [0072], “fluid can include saline or air, such as for flushing mucus out of the sinus cavity”).
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 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holman et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0406012 – “Holman”) in view of Guest et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0085790 – “Guest”).
Regarding Claim 4, Holman discloses the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Holman further discloses that cleansing air is provided through a working channel of an endoscope (Holman paragraph [0084], “The sinus cavity 234 can be cleansed by flushing a cleansing agent (e.g., saline or air) into the sinus cavity 234. In an embodiment, the cleansing can be performed by delivering the cleansing agent via a working channel of an endoscope.”). While a reasonable interpretation of this passage from Holman would be that the spray device is also within the working channel of the endoscope, for purposes of compact prosecution Examiner further cites Guest, which is analogous art in the field of endoscopic treatment that explicitly teaches the spray device (Guest FIG. 2, injection catheter 40 with a needle 42; Guest paragraph [0009], “inserting an injection member through the skin puncture site and into the spinal cord and injecting the therapeutic substance through an aperture of the injection member”) is inserted through a channel in the endoscope (Guest paragraph [0035], “introducing a flexible catheter with an attached needle into a working channel or lumen of the endoscope”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilizes Guest’s working channel to position Holman’s medical device 200. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that utilizes a working channel in an endoscope to position the medical device.
Regarding Claim 13, Holman discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Holman does not explicitly disclose withdrawing the spray device from the target area while spraying the drug.
Guest is analogous art in the field of endoscopic procedures that teaches withdrawing the spray device from the target area while spraying the drug (Guest FIG. 4C, syringe 46 and catheter 40 treating subarachnoid space 50 of a spinal column; Guest paragraph [0009], “The injection member may be at least partially withdrawn from the spinal cord while injecting the therapeutic substance to thereby form a trail of therapeutic substance.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Guest’s trail of therapeutic substance with the method disclosed by Holman . A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that provides additional therapeutic coverage of a target area.
Regarding Claim 14, Holman in view of Guest teaches the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Guest further teaches wherein the spray device is configured to spray the drug on multiple locations simultaneously (Guest FIG. 4C, showing catheter 40 treating multiple locations within subarachnoid space 50).
Regarding Claim 15, Holman discloses the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Holman does not explicitly disclose withdrawing the spray device from the target area while spraying the drug.
Guest is analogous art in the field of endoscopic procedures that teaches withdrawing the spray device from the target area while spraying the drug (Guest FIG. 4C, syringe 46 and catheter 40 treating subarachnoid space 50 of a spinal column; Guest paragraph [0009], “The injection member may be at least partially withdrawn from the spinal cord while injecting the therapeutic substance to thereby form a trail of therapeutic substance.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Guest’s trail of therapeutic substance with the method disclosed by Holman . A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that provides additional therapeutic coverage of a target area.
Regarding Claim 16, Holman in view of Guest teaches the features of Claim 15.
Guest further teaches wherein the spray device is configured to spray the drug on multiple locations simultaneously (Guest FIG. 4C, showing catheter 40 treating multiple locations within subarachnoid space 50).
Regarding Claim 17, Holman discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Holman does not explicitly disclose wherein the spray device comprises a connector on a proximal side.
Guest is analogous art in the field of endoscopic treatment that teaches wherein the spray device (Guest FIG. 4C, catheter 40) comprises a connector on a proximal side (Guest FIG. 4C, connection between catheter 40 and syringe 46; Guest paragraph [0040], “A syringe 46 containing cells and/or other therapeutic agent(s) is placed in fluid communication with the catheter 40 and needle 42”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or substitute Guest’s catheter 40 for Holman’s medical device 200. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination/substitution according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that has a source of therapeutic agents for treating an endoscopic area of interest.
Regarding Claim 18, Holman in view of Guest teaches the features of Claim 17, as described above.
Guest further teaches wherein the connector is configured to connect to a drug supply source (Guest FIG. 4C, syringe 46; Guest paragraph [0040], “A syringe 46 containing cells and/or other therapeutic agent(s) is placed in fluid communication with the catheter 40 and needle 42”).
Regarding Claim 19, Holman discloses the features of Claim 10, as described above.
wherein the spray device comprises a connector on a proximal side.
Holman does not explicitly disclose wherein the spray device comprises a connector on a proximal side.
Guest is analogous art in the field of endoscopic treatment that teaches wherein the spray device (Guest FIG. 4C, catheter 40) comprises a connector on a proximal side (Guest FIG. 4C, connection between catheter 40 and syringe 46; Guest paragraph [0040], “A syringe 46 containing cells and/or other therapeutic agent(s) is placed in fluid communication with the catheter 40 and needle 42”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or substitute Guest’s catheter 40 for Holman’s medical device 200. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination/substitution according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that has a source of therapeutic agents for treating an endoscopic area of interest.
Regarding Claim 20, Holman in view of Guest teaches the features of Claim 19, as described above.
Guest further teaches wherein the connector is configured to connect to a drug supply source (Guest FIG. 4C, syringe 46; Guest paragraph [0040], “A syringe 46 containing cells and/or other therapeutic agent(s) is placed in fluid communication with the catheter 40 and needle 42”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holman et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0406012 – “Holman”) in view of Kojo (US PGPUB 2019/0336733 – “Kojo”).
Regarding Claim 5, Holman discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Holman does not explicitly disclose after spraying the drug, withdrawing the spray device from the target area; and withdrawing the spray device from the nose and paranasal sinuses.
Kojo is analogous art in the field of endoscopic treatment that teaches after spraying the drug, withdrawing the spray device from the target area; and withdrawing the spray device from the nose and paranasal sinuses (Kojo FIG. 2B, drug administration sheath 1 within maxillary sinus 100; Kojo paragraph [0062], “After the application of the drug 11 to the mucosa in the maxillary sinus 100 is completed…the drug administration sheath 1 is extracted from the maxillary sinus 100, and removed out of the body.”; Examiner interprets Kojo’s drug administration sheath 1 as a fluid delivery device, i.e., a spray device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kojo’s step of removing the spray device from the patient with the method disclosed by Holman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a sinus cleaning/treating method in which the cleaning/treating instrument is withdrawn upon completion of the sinus cleaning/treating.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holman et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0406012 – “Holman”) in view of Tanigami et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0386270 – “Tanigami”).
Regarding Claim 6, Holman discloses the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Holman further discloses before spraying the drug (Holman FIG. 4, block 270; Holman paragraph [0096], “Operation 270 can include delivering the fluid in the medical device 200 to the sinus cavity 234”), and positioning the spray device with respect to the site of inflammation (Holman Fig. 4, block 258; advancing the delivery device 280 into the sinus cavity 234).
Holman does not explicitly disclose confirming a site of inflammation in the target area with an endoscopic image.
Tanigami is analogous art in the field of endoscopic treatment that teaches confirming a site of inflammation in the target area with an endoscopic image (Tanigami FIG. 1, endoscope apparatus 2 including camera unit 22, and treatment instrument 61; Tanigami paragraph [0071], “The user checks the display image displayed on the display apparatus 5, disposes the distal end portion of the insertion portion 6 at a position where an image of the treatment target site in the subject can be picked up, and also disposes the treatment unit 73 of the treatment instrument 61 near the living body tissue at this treatment target; see also Tanigami paragraph [0153], which describes the target sight as being inflamed.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tanigami’s method of identifying an inflammation site and positioning the treatment device thereupon with the method taught by Holman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a therapeutic method that precisely treats a target site of inflammation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holman et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0406012 – “Holman”) in view of Tanigami et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0386270 – “Tanigami”) and Uemori et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0037173 – “Uemori”).
Regarding Claim 7, Holman in view of Tanigami teaches the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Holman in view of Tanigami does not explicitly teach wherein the confirming the site of inflammation includes observing at least one of a normal endoscopic image and an endoscopic image in which the site of inflammation is emphasized.
Uemori is analogous art in the field of endoscopic operations that teaches the confirming the site of inflammation includes observing at least one of a normal endoscopic image and an endoscopic image in which the site of inflammation is emphasized (Uemori FIG. 6, block S22; Uemori paragraph [0096], “a pseudo color image is generated on the basis of a spectral image of a wavelength of light effective for a target, which is determined from a multispectral image captured using white light. This makes it possible to present a color image in which a feature of the target is emphasized to the user”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Uemori’s method of highlighting a target with the method taught by Holman in view of Tanigami. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that displays a “feature of the target in an easy-to-understand manner” (see Uemori paragraph [0096]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holman et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0406012 – “Holman”) in view of Maeda et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0176486 – “Maeda”).
Regarding Claim 8, Holman discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Holman does not explicitly teach before sending the gas, aspirating the deposits inside the target area with an aspirating device.
Maeda is analogous art in the field of endoscopic operations that teaches before sending the gas, aspirating the deposits inside the target area with an aspirating device (Maeda FIG. 12; Maeda paragraph [0108], “irrelevant objects are physically eliminated from the target site during the special inspection mode…Irrelevant objects may also be eliminated by suction into a catheter connected to an aspirator.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Maeda’s pre-op cleaning of the target using aspiration with the method disclosed by Holman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that cleans a target (sinus) area more thoroughly than a single-pass cleaning.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holman et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0406012 – “Holman”) in view of Hunt (US PGPUB 2006/0135846 – “Hunt”).
Regarding Claim 9, Holman discloses the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Holman does not explicitly disclose wherein a first operator operates the endoscope, and a second operator different from the first operator operates the spray device.
Hunt is analogous art in the field of endoscopic treatment that teaches wherein a first operator operates the endoscope, and a second operator different from the first operator operates the treatment instrument (Hunt paragraph [0002], “Endoscopes are known medical instruments having a handpiece…The handpiece typically includes knobs and buttons to allow a first operator of the endoscope to manipulate the distal end portion of the flexible tube in a body passageway…The handpiece also includes a working channel opening which allows a second operator to hold the handle of an endoscope adjunct device (such as a grasper, biopsy forceps, or a snare) while inserting a cable of the endoscope adjunct device into the working channel opening”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hunt’s method of utilizing a two-member endoscopic surgical team with the method disclosed by Holman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that allows operation of different surgical components to be performed by different persons, thus preventing a single operator from becoming overburdened or having to release a first instrument in order to grasp a second instrument for control thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed April 7, 2026, with respect to the objection to Claim 10 for a typographical error have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the current amendment to Claim 10. The objection to Claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 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. More specifically, Applicant’s arguments in pages 7-9 filed on April 7, 2026 are directed towards rejections made in reliance on prior art Abate et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0369459 – “Abate”). Abate is no longer cited in the rejections of Claim 1 or any of Claims 2-10.
As such, the rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 are maintained in view of the present amendments and the newly-cited art, including but not limited to Holman et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0406012 – “Holman”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes, but is not limited to:
Cha et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0012869 – “Cha”), which teaches in Cha FIG. 2 a nasal irrigation system that uses pressurized air from a nasal port 14 passing through a nasal cavity and returning to a return nasal port 16 to flush debris out of the nasal cavity;
Flickinger (US PGPUB 2012/0000460 – “Flickinger”), which teaches in Flickinger FIG. 2 a nasal irrigator that uses air to flush out debris from and delivers a therapeutic drug to a nasal cavity;
Spence et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0078719 – “Spence”), which teaches in Spence FIG. 1D a nasal cannula that forces pressurized air out of a first nasal prong 134A and returns the air through a second nasal prong 134B after passing through a patient’s nasal passageways;
Ballini et al. (US Patent RE 36,070 – “Ballini”), which teaches in Ballini FIG. 2 a high-pressure nasal/paranasal cavity washer that uses compressed air to force cleaning/flushing fluid through the nasal/paranasal cavity;
Jenkins et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0274600 – “Jenkins”), which teaches in FIG. 1 a lavage catheter 100 for cleaning out and delivering therapeutic substances into sinuses or other areas in the paranasal space; and
Kennedy et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0059350 – “Kennedy”), which teaches in Kennedy paragraph [0032] a process for continuing to apply a therapeutic formulation to a target during withdrawal of an access catheter from an access site.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
6/4/26
Prosecution Insights