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 light of the amendments to the claims filed 07/20/2026 in which claims 1, 13, 21, 25-26, 28, 30, 32, 36, and 39 are amended, claims 1-2, 8, 10-11, 13-18, 21, 23, 25-36, 39-41, and 77 are pending in the instant application.
In light of the restriction requirement in which claims 28-34, 41, and 77 were withdrawn from further consideration, claims 1-2, 8, 10-11, 13-18, 21, 23, 25-27, 35-36, and 39-40 are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to U.S. Provisional App. no. 63/367,755 filed on 07/06/2022.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10-11, 13-18, 21, 23, 25-36, 39-41, and 77 receive priority to the prior-filed application, filed on 07/06/2022.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Drawings
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of the arguments filed 07/20/2026.
Objections to the Specification
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of the arguments and amendments filed 07/20/2026.
Rejections of the Claims under 102 and/or 103
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or wherein the claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claims 1 and 39, the applicant asserts in the Remarks filed 07/20/2026 that the prior art to Smith fails to disclose a flexible wall container and the structure of the actuator.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully notes that the prior art to Smith was not used in the previous Office Action filed 02/20/2026 to read on the newly added limitations. Further, as explained below, Tufts, Smith, or Koreska disclose or suggest the newly added limitations.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
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 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.
Primary Reference: Tufts
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,991,394 B2 to Tufts.
Regarding claim 39, Tufts discloses a method for topically applying a therapeutic agent to a treatment area (col. 1 ln. 26-34; col. 3 ln. 19-30; col. 6 ln. 28-67; Fig. 1, applicator/flexible wall container 10), the method comprising:
storing, in a fluid-containing ampule, a therapeutic agent, the fluid-containing ampule disposed at least partially in a flexible wall container (col. 3 ln. 19-30; col. 3 ln. 39-51; Fig. 1, applicator/flexible wall container 10 comprising flexible body 12 further comprising lever/release button 26 including flexible crush portion 36; Fig. 3, fluid-containing ampules 14/15 disposed within body 12 of applicator/flexible wall container 10);
pressing a release button on the flexible wall container to break the fluid-containing ampule thereby releasing the therapeutic agent (col. 5 ln. 20-35; col. 6 ln. 28-67);
absorbing, by a tip, the therapeutic agent released from the fluid-containing ampule (col. 4 ln. 15-26, porous element/tip 16; col. 6 ln. 28-67; Fig. 1, porous element/tip 16); and
releasing, by the tip, the therapeutic agent to a treatment area in response to contact between the tip and the treatment area (col. 4 ln. 15-26, porous element/tip 16; col. 6 ln. 28-67; Fig. 1, porous element/tip 16).
Regarding claim 40, the cited prior art discloses the method of claim 40. Tufts further discloses comprising absorbing at least some therapeutic agent from the treatment area (col. 1 ln. 26-34; col. 4 ln. 15-26, porous element/tip 16 is a sponge which would be considered to absorb liquid upon release of pressure).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Primary Reference: Smith
Claims 1, 13-17, 21, 26-27, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 12,110,223 B2 to Smith.
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses an applicator for topically applying a therapeutic agent (col. 6 ln. 1-19, substance 20 can be a medicament, biological sample; Fig. 12-13, 24A-B), the applicator comprising:
a flexible wall container (Fig. 12-13, opening structure/container 1 comprising press pads 6; col. 4 ln. 62-65);
a fluid-containing ampule containing the therapeutic agent, the fluid-containing ampule disposed at least partially within the flexible wall container (Fig. 12-13, opening structure/container 1 to store ampoule 19 comprising substance 20);
an actuator configured to release the therapeutic agent from the container (col. 4 ln. 50-67 and col. 5 ln. 1-26; Fig. 12-13, push button 2 and associated structure, press pads 6), the actuator comprising:
a release button on the flexible wall container (col. 4 ln. 50-67 and col. 5 ln. 1-26; Fig. 12-13, press pads 6);
a plunger rod configured to release an amount of therapeutic agent (col. 4 ln. 50-67 and col. 5 ln. 1-26; Fig. 12-13, push button 2 and associated structure, press pads 6); and
a tip configured to absorb the therapeutic agent released from the fluid-containing ampule (col. 4 ln. 34-49, tip 3 is a sponge; Fig. 12-13, tip 3 absorbing liquid from broken ampoule 19) and to apply the therapeutic agent to a treatment area in response to contact between the tip and the treatment area (col. 4 ln. 34-49, tip 3 is a sponge which would be considered to release liquid upon pressure).
Further, the limitations “a release button on the flexible wall container that is pressed to break the fluid-containing ampule; plunger rod configured to push on the broken fluid-containing ampule to release an amount of therapeutic agent” are considered to be functional language. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the function as recited in the claim, the prior art structure is considered to reasonably meet the limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2112.01(I). In the instant case, Smith discloses all of the structure as claimed by Applicant. While Smith discloses that the plunger rod (push button and associated structure) are used to break the ampule, the release button (press pads) could break or further break the fluid-containing ampule as the press pads are adjacent the fracturing area of the ampule and the ampules could be made from any of glass, plastic, or metal foil (col. 3 ln. 1-10; col. 5 ln. 27-51; Fig. 12-13). Further, the plunger rod could push on the broken ampule after breaking as the plunger rod is not configured to only press in one direction; therefore, the plunger rod could be pushed and pulled multiple times.
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses wherein the therapeutic agent comprises at least one of a liquid or a gel (col. 6 ln. 1-19, substance 20 can be a medicament, biological sample; col. 7 ln. 15-31; Fig. 12-13, 17-18; Fig. 24A showing liquid in top ampoule).
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses wherein the tip comprises a porous, absorbent, and/or an adsorbent material (col. 4 ln. 34-49, tip 3 is a sponge, sponge is inherently porous; Fig. 12-13, tip 3 absorbing liquid from broken ampoule 19).
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses wherein the tip comprises pores (col. 4 ln. 34-49, tip 3 is a sponge; Fig. 12-13, tip 3 absorbing liquid from broken ampoule 19).
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses wherein the tip comprises at least one of a hygroscopic, hydrophilic, absorbent, or an adsorbent material (col. 4 ln. 34-49, tip 3 is a sponge; Fig. 12-13, tip 3 absorbing liquid from broken ampoule 19), the tip configured to retain the therapeutic agent when the tip is not in contact with the treatment area (col. 4 ln. 34-49; tip 3 is a sponge which would be considered to release liquid upon pressure; Fig. 12-13, tip 3 absorbing liquid from broken ampoule 19).
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses wherein the tip comprises at least one of a dome-shaped, conical, cylindrical, chiseled, multiply curved, or polygonal shape (Fig. 12-13, tip 3 is polygonal).
Regarding claim 21, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses wherein the fluid-containing ampule comprises a frangible or puncturable material col. 6 ln. 1-19, ampoule 19 fractures).
Further, the limitation “wherein the fluid-containing ampule is configured to fracture or puncture in response to at least one of an applied circumferential pressure or an applied radial pressure applied by the release button” is considered to be functional language. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the function as recited in the claim, the prior art structure is considered to reasonably meet the limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2112.01(I). In the instant case, Smith discloses all of the structure as claimed by Applicant. While Smith discloses that the plunger rod (push button and associated structure) are used to break the ampule, the release button (press pads) could break or further break the fluid-containing ampule as the press pads are adjacent the fracturing area of the ampule and the ampules could be made from any of glass, plastic, or metal foil (col. 3 ln. 1-10; col. 5 ln. 27-51; Fig. 12-13).
Regarding claim 26, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses wherein the flexible wall container further comprises a tube configured to transport the therapeutic agent to the tip (Fig. 12-13, tube connecting opening structure/container 1 to tip 3).
Regarding claim 27, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses wherein the actuator comprises at least one of a twist end, a push end, a clicker, or a plunge end actuation mechanism (col. 4 ln. 50-67 and col. 5 ln. 1-26; Fig. 12-13, push button 2 and associated structure act as an actuator configured to break ampoule 19).
Regarding claim 36, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses wherein the flexible wall container comprises a plurality of fluid-containing ampules configured to store the therapeutic agent (Fig. 24A-B, 19A and 19X ampoules), the actuator configured to release the therapeutic agent from each of the plurality of fluid-containing ampules independently and separately, the actuator configured to release the therapeutic agent to the treatment area from each of the plurality of capsules independently and separately (col. 7 ln. 15-31, depression of push button 2 can allow for staggered release of substances from ampoules, partial depression to break only a single ampoule can allow for independent and separate release from the ampoules and to the treatment area).
Claims 2 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied above, and further in view of U.S. Patent no. 11,542,136 B1 to May.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to explicitly disclose wherein the therapeutic agent comprises at least one of a chemexfoliant, a soothing agent, or an organic agent.
May discloses an applicator for topical application comprising a therapeutic agent comprising at least one of a chemexfoliant, a soothing agent, or an organic agent to increase the use cases of the applicator (col. 34 ln. 34-60; Fig. 1).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention of Smith to comprise a therapeutic agent as taught by May, because May discloses a similar applicator to that of Smith comprising an absorbent tip and a body for breaking an ampoule (Fig. 1) and Smith discloses that their system may be used for medicaments (col. 6 ln. 1-19). Therefore, it would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill looking at the disclosure of May to utilize the applicator of Smith with the claimed medicaments with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 35, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the tip comprises a roller configured to control a release of fluid material.
May teaches an applicator comprising a roller configured to control a release of fluid material such that it assists in dispensing the flowable material from the dispenser to a receiving surface (col. 11 ln. 4-25).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the tip of Smith to comprise a roller as taught by May, because May teaches that a roller assists in dispensing a flowable material from a dispenser (col. 11 ln. 4-25).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied above, and further in view of WO/2003/075979 A2 to Simon.
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose a light source, the light source integrated within or attached to a body of the applicator.
Simon discloses a syringe comprising a light source integrated within or attached to a body of the syringe to illuminate the area of the body that is receiving treatment to ensure proper positioning (para. 0022-0024; para. 0028; para. 0139-0140; Fig. 17, chemiluminescent light source 1740 on syringe 1710).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the applicator of Smith to comprise a light source as taught by Simon, because Simon teaches that the light source of their invention provides illumination that is lightweight and independent of an external power supply to ensure proper positioning of a medicament applicator in low light situations (para. 0022-0024).
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose a chemiluminescent light source.
Simon discloses a syringe comprising a chemiluminescent light source to illuminate the area of the body that is receiving treatment to ensure proper positioning ( (para. 0022-0024; para. 0028; para. 0139-0140; Fig. 17, chemiluminescent light source 1740 on syringe 1710).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the applicator of Smith to comprise a light source as taught by Simon, because Simon teaches that the light source of their invention provides illumination that is lightweight and independent of an external power supply to ensure proper positioning of a medicament applicator in low light situations (para. 0022-0024).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Simon as applied above, and further in view of WO/2012/139155 A1 to Penrose.
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose a light source, the light source comprising a plurality of selectable spectral ranges, wherein the spectral ranges are configured to illuminate stained tissue for selective identification of tissue.
Penrose discloses a syringe comprising a light source, the light source comprising a plurality of selectable spectral ranges, wherein the spectral ranges are configured to illuminate stained tissue for selective identification of tissue to minimize positional error of the syringe (pg. 4 ln. 11-33 and pg. 5 ln. 1-2; pg. 10 ln. 4-11; Fig. 1, light source 104 comprising light emitter 106).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the applicator of Smith to comprise the light source of Penrose, because Penrose teaches that their device minimizes positional error (pg. 4 ln. 11-33 and pg. 5 ln. 1-2). Further, the ability to select a spectral range provides individual choice for a user of the system to more easily visualize the light from the light source.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied above, and further in view of US/2009/0269121 A1 to Snedden.
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses wherein the tip corresponds to a contour of a treatment area (Fig. 12-13, tip 3 is generally flat and would be considered to correspond to a contour of some parts of a body) and wherein the tip could have different configurations (Fig. 25B); however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the tip comprises a projection, the projection comprising a nipple or an extension.
Snedden teaches an applicator for topical application of a therapeutic agent comprising absorbent tips of different shapes to apply compositions to various surfaces (para. 0017; para. 0077; Fig. 9A-10D, different absorbent tips).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the tip of Smith as taught by Snedden, because Snedden teaches that porous applicator tips may have a variety of configurations for application of compositions to various surfaces (para. 0017).
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the tip such that the tip comprises a projection, since a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied above, and further in view of US/2009/0143765 A1 to Slocum.
Regarding claim 23, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose an auger configured to control an amount of a linear pressure.
Slocum teaches a syringe comprising an auger configured to control an amount of linear pressure to allow for mixing of materials and to maximize the amount of injected fluids (para. 0041; Fig. 2, compressible auger 14 within syringe 10).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the dual-ampoule applicator of Smith to comprise the auger of Slocum, because Slocum teaches that an auger connected to the push mechanism allows for mixing of materials and maximizes an amount of injected fluids (para. 0041).
Primary Reference: Koreska
Claims 1, 13-14, 16-17, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent no. 4,784,506 A to Koreska.
Regarding claim 1, Koreska discloses an applicator for applying an agent (Fig. 2), the applicator comprising:
a flexible wall container (col. 3 ln. 16-19; Fig. 2, flexible casing 14);
a fluid-containing ampule containing the agent, the fluid-containing ampule disposed at least partially within the flexible wall container (col. 2 ln. 39-45; col. 3 ln. 6-28; Fig. 2, ampule 13);
an actuator configured to release the agent from the container (col. 3 ln. 6-28; Fig. 1, tubular body/actuator 1), the actuator comprising:
a release button on the flexible wall container that is pressed to break the fluid-containing ampule (col. 3 ln. 6-28; Fig. 2, blades/release buttons 3/4);
a plunger rod configured to push on the broken fluid containing ampule (col. 3 ln. 20-31; Fig. 2, pusher/plunger rod 10); and
a tip configured to absorb the agent released from the container, the tip further configured to release the agent to a treatment area in response to contact between the tip and the contact area (col. 3 ln. 6-28; Fig. 2, absorbent tip 15).
Koreska differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Koreska fails to explicitly disclose the applicator for “topically applying a therapeutic agent”; however, this limitation is considered to be a preamble statement reciting intended use. As recited in MPEP 2111.02, “statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art.” As explained above, Koreska discloses all of the structure as claimed. Koreska further discloses that their invention can be used for applying liquid (see col. 2 ln. 39-45; col. 3 ln. 24-28). Therefore, Koreska is structured to topically apply a therapeutic agent.
Further, the limitation “plunger rod configured to push on the broken fluid-containing ampule to release an amount of therapeutic agent” is considered to be functional language. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the function as recited in the claim, the prior art structure is considered to reasonably meet the limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2112.01(I). In the instant case, Koreska discloses all of the structure as claimed by Applicant. Further, although Koreska discloses that the plunger rod is utilized to eject the flexible wall container, ampule, and absorbent tip from the actuator (col. 2 ln. 25-28), this plunger action could also be used to press the flexible wall container and ampule down into the absorbent tip when the tip is in sufficient contact with a desired agent area.
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Koreska further discloses wherein the agent comprises at least one of a liquid or a gel (col. 2 ln. 39-45; col. 3 ln. 24-28).
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Koreska further discloses wherein the tip comprises a porous, absorbent, and/or an adsorbent material (col. 3 ln. 16-19 and 24-28; Fig. 2, absorbent tip 15).
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Koreska further discloses wherein the tip comprises at least one of a hygroscopic, hydrophilic, absorbent, or an adsorbent material (col. 3 ln. 16-19 and 24-28; Fig. 2, absorbent tip 15).
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Koreska further discloses wherein the tip comprises at least one of a dome-shaped, conical, cylindrical, chiseled, multiply curved, or polygonal shape (Fig. 2, absorbent tip 15 is polygonal).
Regarding claim 21, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Koreska further discloses wherein the fluid-containing ampule comprises a frangible or puncturable material, and wherein the fluid-containing ampule is configured to fracture or puncture in response to at least one of an applied circumferential pressure or an applied radial pressure applied by the release button (col. 3 ln. 6-28).
Regarding claim 25, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Koreska further discloses wherein the release button further comprises a puncture cap configured to puncture an end of the fluid-containing ampule proximate to the tip (col. 3 ln. 6-28; Fig. 2, blades/release buttons 3/4 comprising puncture caps 7/8).
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 Linnae Raymond whose telephone number is (571)272-6894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571)272-7159. 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.
/Linnae E. Raymond/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 7 October 2026
Prosecution Insights