DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 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
Acknowledgment is made to the amendment received 4/10/2026.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the specification objection set forth in the previous office action.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to the claim objections set forth in the previous office action.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to the 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph rejection set forth in the previous office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “a second body lumen” to -the second body lumen- in ll. 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “wherein the concentric opening is formed using radiofrequency (RF) energy” to -wherein activating the energy source comprises activating a radiofrequency (RF) energy source to form the concentric opening- in ll. 1-2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3 & 6-7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by LeMole (5,893,369, previously cited).
The Examiner notes: “lumen” can be defined as “the cavity of the tubular organ or part” (www.merriam-webster.com).
Concerning claim 1, as illustrated in Figs. 14-20, Le Mole discloses a method (method for bypassing an occluded artery between a natural graft blood vessel 14 and an artery or vein blood vessel 12; Col. 2, ll. 5-13), comprising:
inserting a guidewire through a first body lumen and into a second body lumen adjacent to the first body lumen (guide wire 52 is passed through vessel 14 to vessel 12; Col. 1, ll. 39-58, Col. 2, ll. 5-13, Col. 9, ll. 20-33);
advancing over the guidewire a medical device into the first body lumen, the medical device having a first portion and a second portion slidably coupled to the first portion, the second portion including a shaft and a non-expandable member, the medical device movable between a first configuration and a second configuration (punch 64, first portion and block 66/ block handle 70, second portion, are advanced over guide wire 52, where block 66/block handle 70 are slidably coupled to punch 64 and include block handle shaft 70 and non-expandable block 66, punch 64 & block 66/shaft 70 being movable between first and second configurations; Col. 9-11, ll. 58-9);
moving the medical device from its first configuration to its second configuration such that the second portion of the medical device moves into a second body lumen (block 66/ block handle 70 is initially parallel to guide wire 52 to insert into vessel 12 and then manipulated to pivot at pivot attachment 72 such that block 66 surface 66s is substantially parallel to the interior surface of the vessel wall 12 Col. 9-11, ll. 58-9); and
activating an energy source associated with at least one of the first portion or the second portion of the medical device to form a concentric opening between the first body lumen and the second body lumen and to couple the first body lumen and the second body lumen (block 66 is translated with mechanical energy (i.e., mechanical energy source is operator of the device) toward punch 64 and the vessel walls between the punch 64 and block 66 are sheared off to create an opening between vessels 12, 14 such that the interiors of the vessels 12, 14 are coupled together; Col. 10-11, ll. 13-9).
Concerning claim 3, LeMole discloses the second portion (66/70) of the medical device is moving in a first direction (i.e., parallel to guidewire 52) when moving from its first configuration to its second configuration, the method further comprising moving the second portion of the medical device in a second direction (i.e., pivoting 66 and drawing 66 closer to the vessel walls) opposite the first direction before the activating (Col. 10-11, ll. 13-9; Fig. 18-20).
Concerning claim 6, LeMole discloses moving the non-expandable member (66) of the second portion (66/70) of the medical device (64/66/70) towards the first portion (64) of the medical device (64/66/70) before the activating (block 66 is translated toward the punch 64 before applying sufficient mechanical pressure to shear off vessel walls); and maintaining the second portion in a position proximate the first portion with an applied force (occurs at an infinitesimal amount of time since no specified time period is claimed) (Col. 10-11, ll. 13-9; Fig. 18-20).
Concerning claim 7, LeMole discloses moving the non-expandable member (66) of the second portion (66/70) of the medical device (64/66/70) towards the first portion (64) of the medical device (64/66/70) before the activating (block 66 is translated toward the punch 64 before applying sufficient mechanical pressure to shear off vessel walls); and applying a pressure between the first portion and the second portion (occurs at an infinitesimal amount of time since no specified time period is claimed) (Col. 10-11, ll. 13-9; Fig. 18-20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LeMole (5,893,369, previously cited), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Clague et al. (2004/0082945, previously cited).
Concerning claim 2, LeMole fails to disclose the concentric opening is formed using radiofrequency (RF) energy. However, Clague et al. disclose a device (60, 40) for creating an opening comprising a first portion (62) positioned on one side of a vessel wall and a second portion (52) positioned on the other side of the vessel wall, the first and second members (62, 52) being operable to mechanically cut, and also electrically cut an opening in the vessel wall via bipolar RF cutting between the first and second members (62, 52). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of LeMole such that a source of RF energy is applied to the third toggle member in order to provide the benefit of enhancing the mechanical cutting, inhibiting blood loss and making a clean incision as taught by Clague et al. ([0024], [0028-0029], [0098-0101]; Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LeMole (5,893,369, previously cited), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Clague et al. (2004/0082945) and Makower (2004/0073238).
Concerning claim 5, LeMole fails to disclose the energy source couples the first body lumen to the second body lumen with at least one of a thermal resistance, a radiofrequency (RF) energy or an ultrasonic energy. However, Clague et al. disclose a device (60, 40) for creating an opening and coupling two interior areas comprising a first portion (62) positioned on one side of a vessel wall and a second portion (52) positioned on the other side of the vessel wall, the first and second members (62, 52) being operable to mechanically cut, and also electrically cut an opening in the vessel wall via bipolar RF cutting between the first and second members (62, 52). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of LeMole such that the concentric opening is formed with at least one of a thermal resistance, a radiofrequency (RF) energy or an ultrasonic energy in order to provide the benefit of enhancing the mechanical cutting, inhibiting blood loss and making a clean incision as taught by Clague et al. ([0024], [0028-0029], [0098-0101]; Fig. 6). LeMole in view of Clague et al. fail to disclose the energy source coupling the body lumens. However, Makower et al. disclose an alternative method of creating an AV fistula between first and second vessels that creates an aperture and comprises coupling a first vessel side wall to a second vessel side wall via various attachment means, including sutures, energy based welding, and glue. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of LeMole in view of Clague et al. such that the method further comprises welding a side wall of the first vessel to the side wall of the second vessel in order to provide the benefit of establishing a firm connection between the openings formed in the adjacently situated vessels as taught by Makower et al. and since Makower et al. teaches the various attachment means to be equivalents in the art for the purposes of attaching two vessels together ([0012], [0041], [0080], [0082], [0086], [0096]).
Claims 8-9 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LeMole (5,893,369, previously cited), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Timm (2012/0016413, previously cited).
Concerning claims 8-9, LeMole fail to disclose measuring/sensing a distance between the first portion and the second portion; and outputting an indication associated with the distance between the first portion and the second portion. However, Timm et al. disclose a method of creating a connection between two vessels comprising a medical device (10) having a first portion (26) and a second portion (28) slidably coupled to the first portion (26) and a position sensor (27) that provides the surgeon with feedback of the distance between the first portion (26) and the second portion (28). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of LeMole to further comprise measuring/sensing a distance between the first portion and the second portion; and outputting an indication associated with the distance between the first portion and the second portion in order to provide the benefit of determining thickness of tissue between the first and second portions as taught by Timm et al. ([0110], [0204])
Claim(s) 10 & 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LeMole (5,893,369, previously cited) in view of Flaherty et al. (6,544,230, previously cited).
Concerning claim 10, as illustrated in Figs. 14-20, Le Mole discloses a method of creating an arteriovenous (AV) fistula between a first vessel and an adjacent second vessel (method for bypassing an occluded artery between a natural graft blood vessel 14 and an artery or vein blood vessel 12; Col. 2, ll. 5-13), comprising:
inserting a guidewire into the first vessel and the second vessel using a needle (guide wire 52 is passed through vessel 14 to vessel 12 via needle 50; Col. 1, ll. 39-58, Col. 2, ll. 5-13, Col. 9, ll. 20-33);
advancing over the guidewire a fistula creation device having a main body having a first tissue contacting surface, a shaft slidably coupled to the main body, and a non-expandable member coupled to the shaft and movable relative to the main body, the non-expandable member having a second tissue contacting surface (punch 64, main body having first tissue contacting surface, and block 66/block handle 70, shaft and non-expandable member, are advanced over guide wire 52, where block 66/block handle 70 are slidably coupled and movable relative to punch 64, non-expandable block 66 has a second tissue contacting surface; Col. 9-11, ll. 58-9);
positioning the main body in the first vessel (punch 64 is positioned in vessel 14; Col. 10-11, ll. 13-9);
moving the shaft such that the non-expandable member is positioned in the second vessel (block 66/block handle 70 is initially parallel to guide wire 52 to insert into vessel 12 and then manipulated to pivot at pivot attachment 72 such that block 66 surface 66s is substantially parallel to the interior surface of the vessel wall 12 Col. 10-11, ll. 13-9);
moving the non-expandable member relative to the main body to contact a side wall of the second vessel and move the second vessel so that it contacts the first vessel (block 66 is translated toward punch 64 to contact vessel side walls 12 such that as punch 64 is then translated toward the vessel wall (shown by the downward arrow in FIG. 20) while, concomitantly, the block 66 is translated toward the punch 64 (shown by the upward arrow in FIG. 20) and as a consequence, the vessel and graft walls between the punch 64 and block 66 are sheared off and captured within the punch 64, where the vessel wall tissue of 12 inherently come in contact with the vessel wall of 14 as the tissue of 12 is being pulled into punch 64 by block 66 and sheared, and sheared off tissue of both vessel walls 12, 14 is shown in Fig. 20 and annotated below by the arrows; Col. 10-11, ll. 13-9); and
PNG
media_image1.png
823
1519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
creating an aperture through the first vessel and the second vessel between the first tissue contacting surface and the second tissue contacting surface (bock 66 is translated with mechanical energy (i.e., mechanical energy source is operator of the device) toward punch 64 and the vessel walls between the punch 64 and block 66 are sheared off to create an opening between vessels 12, 14; Col. 10-11, ll. 13-9).
LeMole fails to disclose positioning an access sheath within the first vessel and the second vessel over said guidewire. However, Flaherty et al. disclose a device for creating a fistula comprising a vessel access sheath (200) having a hollow interior (202) and an exit port through which a needle (10) and device (30) are inserted. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of LeMole to further comprise positioning an access sheath within the first vessel and the second vessel over said guidewire in order to provide the benefit of having a guide catheter/introducer to provide access to the target treatment from the initial entry into a body (i.e., femoral vein) as taught by Flaherty et al. (Col. 18-20, II. 36-3; Fig. 13a-g).
Concerning claim 13, LeMole discloses the first vessel is a vein (can be a biologic craft that is a non-critical artery or vein of small diameter which is harvested from elsewhere in the body) and the second vessel is an artery (can be an artery or vein) (Col. 1, ll. 49-58, Col. 3-4, ll. 66-14).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LeMole (5,893,369, previously cited) in view of Flaherty et al. (6,544,230, previously cited), as applied to claim 10, in further view of Clague et al. (2004/0082945).
Concerning claim 11, LeMole in view of Flaherty et al. fail to disclose creating the aperture comprises applying at least one of RF energy or resistive heat energy to at least one of the first tissue contacting surface of the second tissue contacting surface. However, Clague et al. disclose a device for creating a fistula (60, 48) comprising a second, piercing member (62) positioned on one side of a vessel wall and a third member (52) positioned on the other side of the vessel wall, the first and second members (62, 52) being operable to mechanically cut, and also electrically cut an opening in the vessel wall via bipolar cutting between the first and second members (62, 52). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of LeMole in view of Flaherty et al. such that creating the aperture comprises applying at least one of RF energy or resistive heat energy to at least one of the first tissue contacting surface of the second tissue contacting surface in order to provide the benefit of enhancing the mechanical cutting, inhibiting blood loss as the incision, and to make a clean incision is made as taught by Clague et al. ([0024], [0028-0029], [0098-0101]; Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LeMole (5,893,369, previously cited) in view of Flaherty et al. (6,544,230, previously cited) and Clague et al. (2004/0082945), as applied to claim 11, in further view of Makower (2004/0073238).
Concerning claim 12, LeMole in view of Flaherty et al. in view of Clague et al. fail to disclose welding a side wall of the first vessel to the side wall of the second vessel. However, Makower et al. disclose an alternative method of creating an AV fistula between first and second vessels that creates an aperture and comprises coupling a first vessel side wall to a second vessel side wall via various attachment means, including sutures, energy based welding, and glue. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of LeMole in view of Flaherty et al. and Clague et al. such that the method further comprises welding a side wall of the first vessel to the side wall of the second vessel in order to provide the benefit of establishing a firm connection between the openings formed in the adjacently situated vessels as taught by Makower et al. and since Makower et al. teaches the various attachment means to be equivalents in the art for the purposes of attaching two vessels together ([0012], [0041], [0080], [0082], [0086], [0096]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-7, 10 & 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,751,461. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite a method (method of creating an arteriovenous (AV) fistula between adjacent first and second blood vessels), comprising: inserting a guidewire through a first body lumen and into a second body lumen adjacent to the first body lumen (inserting a second guidewire through the needle from the first vessel into the second vessel); advancing over the guidewire a medical device into the first body lumen, the medical device having a first portion and a second portion slidably coupled to the first portion, the second portion including a shaft and a non-expandable member, the medical device movable between a first configuration and a second configuration (inserting a toggle delivery catheter into the sheath over the second guidewire; advancing a toggle apparatus comprising a shaft and a pivotable toggle member attached to a distal end of the shaft over the second guidewire so that the toggle member is disposed within the second vessel); moving the medical device from its first configuration to its second configuration such that the second portion of the medical device moves into a second body lumen (moving the toggle member proximally to contact the side wall of the second vessel); and activating an energy source associated with at least one of the first portion or the second portion of the medical device to form a concentric opening between the first body lumen and the second body lumen and to couple the first body lumen and the second body lumen to one another(creating an aperture through the side wall of one of the first vessel or the second vessel, wherein creating the aperture comprises using an energized member to apply a cutting force to the side wall). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite a method (method of creating an arteriovenous (AV) fistula between adjacent first and second vessels), comprising: inserting a guidewire into the first vessel and the second vessel using a needle (inserting a first guidewire into the first vessel); positioning an access sheath within the first vessel and the second vessel over said first guidewire (positioning a hollow vessel access sheath within the first vessel over said first guidewire); advancing over the guidewire a fistula creation device having a main body having a first tissue contacting surface, a shaft slidably coupled to the main body, and a non-expandable member coupled to the shaft and movable relative to the main body, the non-expandable member having a second tissue contacting surface and positioning the main body in the first vessel (inserting a toggle delivery catheter into the sheath over the second guidewire); moving the shaft such that the non-expandable member is positioned in the second vessel (advancing a toggle apparatus comprising a shaft and a pivotable toggle member attached to a distal end of the shaft over the second guidewire so that the toggle member is disposed within the second vessel); moving the non-expandable member relative to the main body to contact a side wall of the second vessel and move the second vessel so that it contacts the first vessel (moving the toggle member proximally to contact the side wall of the second vessel; creating the aperture comprises creating apertures through the walls of both of the first and second vessels, and further wherein the apertures in the side walls of each of the first and second vessels together create a communicating aperture between said first and second vessels to create said AV fistula; welding tissue edges defining said communicating aperture); and creating an aperture through the first vessel and the second vessel between the first tissue contacting surface and the second tissue contacting surface (creating an aperture through the side wall of one of the first vessel or the second vessel.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate the claims of the application. Accordingly, the application claims are not patentably distinct from the patent claims. Here, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claims. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific narrow invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Claims 2, 5 & 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,751,461 in view of view of Clague et al. (2004/0082945, previously cited). Claims 2, 5 & 11 are rejected upon the same rationale as applied to claims 2, 5 & 11 above.
Claims 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,751,461 in view of view of Timm (2012/0016413, previously cited). Claims 8-9 are rejected upon the same rationale as applied to claims 8-9 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that LeMole fails to disclose activating the energy source to also couple the first body lumen and the second body lumen, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mechanical energy activation creates the opening which couples the lumens of the first and second bodies. The Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the vessel walls are coupled together) are 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).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that LeMole fails to disclose the vessel walls contacting when moving the non-expandable member, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. LeMole teaches: “The punch 64 is then translated toward the vessel wall (shown by the downward arrow in FIG. 20) while, concomitantly, the block 66 is translated toward the punch 64 (shown by the upward arrow in FIG. 20). As a consequence, the vessel and graft walls between the punch 64 and block 66 are sheared off and captured within the punch 64. The capturing of the sheared wall segments within the punch 64 prevents the sheared tissue from entering into the blood stream and causing subsequent damage. Handgrips (not shown) may be incorporated at the distal ends of the punch and block handles 68, 70 to facilitate actuation.” (Col. 10, ll. 47-57) Thus, as the tissue is sheared, the vessel walls contact one another. Further, as shown in Fig. 20, the sheared off walls also contact each other within the punch 64.
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 JAYMI E DELLA whose telephone number is (571)270-1429. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:00 am - 4:45 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached on (303) 297-4276. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAYMI E DELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
JAYMI E. DELLA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights