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 .
Action is Non-Final
In view of the rejection below based on prior art that was not previously cited, this action is non-final.
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 1-21 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/126,831 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are directed to a more broad recitation including a hollow needle, a stimulator, a feedback sensor, and a controller as detailed in instant claim 1. The claims of the 19/126,831 application are directed to similar recitations but with more specific details. Therefore, the instant claims encompass the scope of the 19/126,831 claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Garfield et al (US 5,991,649, hereinafter “Garfield”).
Regarding claim 1, Garfield discloses a system for positioning a needle comprises: a hollow needle including a first conductive surface adjacent to a point of the needle (col 5, ln 6-41; needle 20 including the array of recording electrodes 40 and stimulation electrodes 44 disposed on the surface of the needle, where the stimulation electrodes 44 are positioned proximate the tip 46 of the needle); a stimulator electrically connected to the first conductive surface and configured to provide an electrical signal to the first conductive surface (col 6, ln 30-50 where the recording 24 further includes a stimulator 80 for invoking electrical events in the needle 20); a feedback sensor configured to be secured to the user's skin and to provide stimulation information associated with activity of a muscle associated with a target nerve (col 7, ln 3-36 as implemented in the arrangement as in col 8, ln 50-60; where the stimulation electrodes are embedded in the tissue while the recording electrodes 40 are positioned outside that tissue on the patients skin); a controller operably connected to the stimulator and the feedback sensor (col 6, ln 30-50) and configured to: control the electrical signal provided to the first conductive surface (col 6, ln 30-50; col 7, ln 3-23), receive stimulation information from the feedback sensor (col 7, ln 3-23); and generate image information associated with a position of the needle relative to the user's body based on the stimulation parameters and stimulation information (col 5, ln 17-22; col 7, ln 3-23 which detail the monitor displays position of the needle relative to the user’s body, where the position is further defined by the stimulation provided by the electrodes to evoke action potentials).
Regarding claim 2, Garfield discloses a display element operably connected to the controller and operable to receive the image information and provide an image of the needle relative to the user's body (col 5, ln 17-22).
Regarding claim 3, Garfield discloses the controller comprises: a processor (col 6, ln 30-50; col 7, ln 3-23); and memory operably connected to the processor and including processor executable code, that when executed by the processor (col 6, ln 30-50): generates stimulation parameters associated with control of the electrical signal based at least on the stimulation information (col 7, ln 3-36); and generates the image information based at least on the stimulation parameters and the stimulation information (col 5, ln 17-22; col 7, ln 3-23; col 8, ln 5-16).
Regarding claim 4, Garfield discloses the image information includes distance information and direction information associated with the needle and the target nerve (col 7, ln 3-23; col 8, ln 5-16).
Regarding claim 5, Garfield discloses the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, applies signal processing techniques to the stimulation information to generate the distance information and the direction information (col 7, ln 3-23).
Regarding claim 6, Garfield discloses the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, implements a machine learning algorithm to generate the distance information and the direction information based on the stimulation information and the stimulation parameters (col 5, ln 17-22; col 7, ln 3-23; col 8, ln 5-16).
Regarding claim 7, Garfield discloses the stimulation parameters and stimulation information are provided to the display element and illustrated on the display element (col 5, ln 17-22; col 7, ln 3-23; col 8, ln 5-16).
Regarding claim 10, Garfield discloses an input element configured to receive the stimulation parameters (col 6, ln 30-50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garfield in view of Torgerson et al (US 8,918,184 B1, hereinafter “Torgerson”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Garfield discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 2 above), but does not explicitly disclose the display element is one of a liquid crystal display, cathode ray tube display, light emitting diode display and a plasma display, nor that the display element is a touch screen configured to enter information associated with the stimulation parameters. Torgerson is analogous art in regard to known arrangements for interacting with an electrical stimulation system (col 18, ln 54-col 19, ln 3; col 19, ln 22-35). Torgerson discloses it was known in the art to provide a display element that is one of a liquid crystal display, cathode ray tube display, light emitting diode display and a plasma display and also to provide a display element that is a touch screen configured to enter information associated with the stimulation parameters. Applied to the invention of Garfield, the features of Torgerson would provide a display element that is one of a liquid crystal display, cathode ray tube display, light emitting diode display and a plasma display, or that the display element is a touch screen configured to enter information associated with the stimulation parameters as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Torgerson in the invention of Garfield, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of known conventional and effective means for displaying and interacting with a stimulation device.
As an alternative rejection, claims 1-5, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al (US20160045746A1, hereinafter “Jiang”).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a system for positioning a needle (pars 0010, 0016, 0052) comprises: a needle including a first conductive surface (par 0051-0053, where the needle is used for stimulation so the surface of the needle is conductive); a stimulator electrically connected to the first conductive surface and configured to provide an electrical signal to the first conductive surface (par 0064); a feedback sensor configured to be secured to the user's skin and to provide stimulation information associated with activity of a muscle associated with a target nerve (par 0064); a controller operably connected to the stimulator and the feedback sensor and configured to: control the electrical signal provided to the first conductive surface (par 0064), receive stimulation information from the feedback sensor (pars 0089-0091; figures 9A-B); and generate image information associated with a position of the needle relative to the user's body based on the stimulation parameters and stimulation information (par 0033, figure 9G).
Jiang, however, does not explicitly state that the needle used is hollow. Wang is in the field of hyperechogenie needles (abstract, for stimulation as in par 0013, 0063-0064) and teaches a hollow needle for stimulation (par 0063-0064, hyperechogenic stimulating block needle). Applied to the invention of Jiang, the features of Wang would provide means for positioning a needle as detailed above using a conductive hollow needle as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Wang in the invention of Jiang, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of more effective stimulation via improved prediction/identification and stimulation of nerve tissue structures particular to a patient.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang discloses a display element operably connected to the controller and operable to receive the image information and provide an image of the needle relative to the user's body (Par 0033: FIG. 9G illustrates a graphical user interface display on a clinician programmer in a system setup utilizing electromyography for neural localization with a foramen needle, in accordance with aspects of the invention; Para. 0097: As shown in FIG. 9G, the graphical user interface display of the CP 60 allows the user to monitor the EMG responses and associated amplitudes. The CP 60 interface includes EMG waveform displays 61 are used to monitor a desired neuromuscular response, an Amplitude display 66 and an Electrode Status Indicator 64, which may include a representation of the foramen needle during neural localization. The waveform displays 61 multiple EMG displays specific to the patient. The amplitude in conjunction with the recorded EMG response can be used to identify when the electrode of the foramen needle is at the targeted nerve).
Regarding claim 3, Jiang discloses that the controller comprises: a processor (pars 0060, 0064) and memory operably connected to the processor and including processor executable code, that when executed by the processor (pars 0033, 0060, 0064): generates stimulation parameters associated with control of the electrical signal based at least on the stimulation information (pars 0033, 0060); and generates the image information based at least on the stimulation parameters and the stimulation information (pars 0033, 0097, figure 9G).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Jiang discloses the image information includes distance information (pars 0097-0098) associated with the needle and the target nerve, where in the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, applies signal processing techniques to the stimulation information to generate the distance information (pars 0097-0098)
Jiang, however, does not explicitly disclose direction information associated with the needle and the target nerve, nor generation of the direction information using the processor. Wang is in the field of hyperechogenie needles (abstract, for stimulation as in par 0013, 0063-0064) and teaches a hollow needle for stimulation (par 0063-0064, hyperechogenic stimulating block needle). Wang also discloses generation of direction information associated with the needle and the target nerve (par 0007, 0073) as known in the art. Applied to the invention of Jiang, the features of Wang would provide means for providing direction information associated with the needle and the target nerve and generation of the direction information using the processor as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Wang in the invention of Jiang, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of more effective stimulation via improved prediction/identification and stimulation of nerve tissue structures particular to a patient.
Regarding claim 7, Jiang discloses the stimulation parameters and stimulation information are provided to the display element and illustrated on the display element (par 0033, figure 9G).
Regarding claim 10, Jiang discloses an input element configured to receive the stimulation parameters (par 0010).
Regarding claim 11, Jiang discloses the features of the claim (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose the hollow needle is configured to provide a pharmaceutical anesthesia to the target nerve. Wang is in the field of hyperechogenie needles (abstract, for stimulation as in par 0013, 0017, 0063-0064) and teaches a hollow needle for stimulation as well as other treatment modalities (par 0063-0064, hyperechogenic stimulating block needle). Wang also discloses the hollow needle is configured to provide a pharmaceutical anesthesia to the target nerve (par 0017) as known in the art. Applied to the invention of Jiang, the features of Wang would provide means for configuring the hollow needle to provide a pharmaceutical anesthesia to the target nerve as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Wang in the invention of Jiang, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of more effective treatment and minimize trauma or damage to nearby nerves.
As an alternative rejection, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Wang, further in view of Lujan et al (WO2011025865A1, hereinafter “Lujan”; copy provided with Office action).
Regarding claim 6, Jiang in view of Wang discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 4 above), but does not explicitly disclose the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, implements a machine learning algorithm to generate the distance information and the direction information based on the stimulation information and the stimulation parameters. Lujan is analogous art in regard methods associated with neural stimulation (abstract). Lujan discloses it was known in the art to provide processor executable code that, when executed by the processor, implements a machine learning algorithm to generate the distance information and the direction information based on the stimulation information and the stimulation parameters (pars 0023-0026, 0073). Applied to the invention of Jiang in view of Wang, the features of Lujan would provide processor executable code that, when executed by the processor, implements a machine learning algorithm to generate the distance information and the direction information based on the stimulation information and the stimulation parameters as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Lujan in the invention of Jiang in view of Wang, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved engineering design and scientific analysis of neurostimulation, improving determinations of mechanisms and effects of neurostimulation at the neuronal level that are difficult to predict.
As an alternative rejection, claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Wang, further in view of Torgerson et al (US 8,918,184 B1, hereinafter “Torgerson”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Jiang discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 2 above), but does not explicitly disclose the display element is one of a liquid crystal display, cathode ray tube display, light emitting diode display and a plasma display, nor that the display element is a touch screen configured to enter information associated with the stimulation parameters. Torgerson is analogous art in regard to known arrangements for interacting with an electrical stimulation system (col 18, ln 54-col 19, ln 3; col 19, ln 22-35). Torgerson discloses it was known in the art to provide a display element that is one of a liquid crystal display, cathode ray tube display, light emitting diode display and a plasma display and also to provide a display element that is a touch screen configured to enter information associated with the stimulation parameters. Applied to the invention of Jiang, the features of Torgerson would provide a display element that is one of a liquid crystal display, cathode ray tube display, light emitting diode display and a plasma display, or that the display element is a touch screen configured to enter information associated with the stimulation parameters as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Torgerson in the invention of Jiang, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of known conventional and effective means for displaying and interacting with a stimulation device.
As an alternative rejection, claims 12, 16, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Wang, further in view of Barolat (US20050240243A1).
Regarding claim 12, Jiang discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose a catheter mounted in the needle with a distal end of the catheter extending beyond the hollow needle, the distal end including a conductive portion electrically connected to the stimulator, wherein the stimulator provides a pain relieving waveform to the conductive portion of the catheter for application to the target nerve. Barolat is analogous art in regard to known systems and arrangements for neural stimulation (abstract). Barolat discloses it was known in the art to provide a catheter mounted in the needle with a distal end of the catheter extending beyond the hollow needle, the distal end including a conductive portion electrically connected to the stimulator, wherein the stimulator provides a pain relieving waveform to the conductive portion of the catheter for application to the target nerve (pars 0033-0038). Applied to the invention of Jiang, the features of Barolat would provide a catheter mounted in the needle with a distal end of the catheter extending beyond the hollow needle, the distal end including a conductive portion electrically connected to the stimulator, wherein the stimulator provides a pain relieving waveform to the conductive portion of the catheter for application to the target nerve as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Barolat in the invention of Jiang, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved treatment of pain via stimulation based on patient feedback.
Regarding claim 16, Jiang discloses the stimulation information indicates effectiveness of the pain relieving waveform based on activity of the muscle associated with the target nerve (par 0097, figure 9G).
Regarding claim 19, Jiang discloses the controller is operably connected to a user device associated with the user, wherein the user device provides control information to the controller to control the stimulator to provide the pain relieving waveform (par 0062, 0064, 0066).
Regarding claim 21, Jiang discloses the user device is connected to the controller via a wireless connection (par 0062).
As an alternative rejection, claims 13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Wang and Barolat, further in view of Birkill et al (US 2012/0143281 A1, hereinafter “Birkill”).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Jiang in view of Wang and Barolat discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 12 above), but does not explicitly disclose the pain relieving waveform includes a low frequency square wave with a high frequency bi-polar exponentially decaying waveform superimposed thereon, wherein the high frequency bi-polar exponentially decaying waveform has a frequency of about 133 kHz. Burkill is analogous art in regard to known methods for treating pain via stimulation (abstract). Burkill discloses it was known in the art to provide the pain relieving waveform includes a low frequency square wave with a high frequency bi-polar exponentially decaying waveform superimposed thereon, wherein the high frequency bi-polar exponentially decaying waveform has a frequency of about 133 kHz (par 0017, claims 1 and 13). Applied to the invention of Jiang in view of Wang and Barolat, the features of Burkill would provide the pain relieving waveform including a low frequency square wave with a high frequency bi-polar exponentially decaying waveform superimposed thereon, wherein the high frequency bi-polar exponentially decaying waveform has a frequency of about 133 kH as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Burkill in the invention of Jiang in view of Wang and Barolat, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of more effective pain treatment via electrical stimulation.
As an alternative rejection, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Wang, further in view of Pellegrino et al (US10588691B2, hereinafter “Pellegrino”).
Regarding claim 15, Jiang in view of Wang and Barolat discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 12 above), but does not explicitly disclose the pain relieving waveform includes a radio frequency component between 50kHz and 500kHz of varying or non-varying amplitude. Pellegrino is analogous art in regard to known stimulation devices (abstract). Ackermann discloses it was known in the art to provide a pain relieving waveform including a radio frequency component between 50kHz and 500kHz of varying or non-varying amplitude (col 8, ln 36-col 9, ln 25). Applied to the invention of Jiang in view of Wang and Barolat, the features of Ackermann would provide means for a pain relieving waveform including a radio frequency component between 50kHz and 500kHz of varying or non-varying amplitude as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Pellegrino in the invention of Jiang in view of Wang and Barolat, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of pain treatment that is effective, less costly, long-lasting with shorter recovery times as known in the art.
As an alternative rejection, claims 17, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Wang and Barolat, further in view of Saab (US20170311882A1).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Jiang discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 12 above), but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of EEG electrodes configured for attachment to a user's head and configured to provide EEG information indicating brain activity associated with pain of the user, wherein the stimulation parameters are set based on the EEG information. Saab is analogous art detection of pain applicable to stimulation treatments (abstract). Saab discloses it was known in the art to provide a plurality of EEG electrodes configured for attachment to a user's head and configured to provide EEG information indicating brain activity associated with pain of the user, wherein the stimulation parameters are set based on the EEG information (pars 0005-0010). Applied to the invention of Jiang, the features of Saab would provide a plurality of EEG electrodes configured for attachment to a user's head and configured to provide EEG information indicating brain activity associated with pain of the user, wherein the stimulation parameters are set based on the EEG information as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Saab in the invention of Jiang, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of safe and effective methods of detecting pain and use of these methods to determine efficacious therapies for the diverse diseases and disorders associated with pain
Regarding claim 22, Jiang discloses at least one of the EEG information, brain stem response information, compound action potentials, nociceptive reflex information, EMG information and pupilometry information is provided to the display element and illustrated on the display element (par 0097, figure 9G).
As an alternative rejection, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Wang, and Barolat, further in view of Ackermann (US20130006326).
Regarding claim 20, Jiang discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 19 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the user device is connected to the
controller via a wired connection. Ackermann is analogous art in regard to known stimulation devices (abstract). Ackermann discloses it was known in the art to provide a user device connected to the controller via a wired connection (par 0061). Applied to the invention of Jiang, the features of Ackermann would provide means for the user device to connect to the controller using a wired connection as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Ackermann in the invention of Jiang, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a conventional means for providing a connection for communication that is stable and reliable as known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lindsey G Wehrheim whose telephone number is (571)270-5181. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. 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.
Lindsey G Wehrheim
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/LINDSEY G WEHRHEIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
