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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 11/26/2025. As directed by the amendment: claim 1 has been amended, no additional claims have been cancelled and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-15 and 19-21 are presently pending in this application, and currently examined in the Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 sets forth multiple parameters which have never been mentioned, or suggested, in the originally field disclosure. Specifically, lines 3-4 set forth the parameter of “a support structure including a plurality of filaments that are wound together to define a wound wire support structure” (emphasis added); this parameter was never mentioned in the originally filed disclosure. It is noted that the originally filed specification does state that filaments can be wound, however the winding is predominantly in reference to the support structure having a braided construct; nevertheless, the originally filed specification never mentions “a wound wire support structure”, as set forth in the claim. Additionally, lines 5-6 set forth the parameter of the plurality of filaments “degrade within a first time period resulting in fracture of the support structure in the first time period” (emphasis added); again, this this parameter was never mentioned in the originally filed disclosure. To clarify, the originally filed disclosure never states that degradation of the plurality of filaments results in fracture of the support structure, let along occurring in the first time period; instead, throughout the originally filed specification, the term “fracture” is used as an alternative to degradation/degrading, i.e. “degradation or fracture” (in paragraphs [0068] & [0097]), or “fracture or degradation” (for example in paragraphs [0077]; [0092]; [0098]; [0118]; [0123] etc.). Furthermore, lines 4-5 set forth the parameter of “the plurality of filaments configured to degrade within a first time period” and lines 14-15 set forth “the membrane is configured to promote partial tissue ingrowth or partial tissue encapsulation in a second time period that is less than the first time period” (emphasis added), however this parameter was never stated in the originally field disclosure. Specifically, the originally filed disclosure does not mention or suggest that a time period, for promoting partial tissue ingrowth or partial tissue encapsulation into/by the membrane, is less than a time period for which the filaments are configured to degrade; nor are any specific time periods ever mentioned which could equate to the parameter of the second time period being less than the first time period. Lastly, lines 16-18 set forth the parameter of “tissue ingrowth renders structure provide by the support structure unnecessary prior to fracture of the support structure in the first time period” (emphasis added); again, this parameter was never mentioned or suggested in the originally filed disclosure. To clarify, the originally filed disclosure never mentions or suggests that the structure provide by the support structure is rendered unnecessary “prior to fracture of the support structure in the first time period”; in fact it states, many times throughout the originally filed specification, that the “filaments degrade while the membrane facilitates healthy tissue ingrowth or regrowth such that the structure provided by the bio-degradable or bio-corrodible filaments may become unnecessary”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 3-4 set forth the parameter of “a support structure including a plurality of filaments that are wound together to define a wound wire support structure” (emphasis added); however this parameter is found to be confusing since it is not clear what exactly a “wound wire support structure” would look like, and/or how exactly the wound wire support structure is formed by the filaments, i.e. how exactly are the filaments wound together, are they helically wound around each other or are they wound in a braid formation, or something else completely different; and the originally filed disclosure does not aid in clarifying, or illustrating, the structure of “a wound wire support structure”. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would not reasonable be apprised of the scope of the invention, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 19-21, all of which depend from claim 17, however claim 17 was canceled by the amendments dated 04/02/2025; thus, for the purpose of examination, claims 19-21 shall be interpreted as depending from independent claim 1. Additionally, claims 19-21 recite the limitation of “the catch member”, on line 1 of all three claims; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear what exact structure is meant by the limitation of “the catch member” and/or how exactly it relates to the final structure of the claimed apparatus.
Examiner’s Notes
It is to be noted that in device/apparatus claims only the claimed structure of the final device bears patentable weight, and intended use/functional language is considered to the extent that it further defines the claimed structure of the final device (see MPEP 2114).
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 1-13, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callaghan (US PG Pub. 2007/0244518), as previously presented, in view of Cully (US PG Pub. 2014/0121760), as previously presented, and Center et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0005810), as previously presented, hereinafter Center.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12 and 13, Callaghan discloses an apparatus (20/1170), illustrated in Figures 2A-2H and 14A-14D, for implantation in an opening of a tissue ([0047], Lines 1-4) comprising a support structure including a plurality of filaments (32/42/232/242/1161), wherein the plurality of filaments are bio-absorbable an configured to degrade within a first time period, resulting in fracture of the support structure, the support structure including a proximal disk (40/1142), a distal disk (30/1132), and a waist (22/1122), wherein the plurality of filaments define a hub, specifically a proximal hub (44/1144) arranged at a proximal end of the plurality of filaments, a distal hub (39/1139) arranged at a distal end of the plurality of filaments, and a central ring hub (22/1122) positioned about the waist (22/1122), illustrated in Figures 2A-2H and 14A-14D, wherein the waist (22/1122) is operable to be positioned through the opening of the tissue ([0053]; [0055]; [0087], Line 5; [0102]; [0104] & [0105]); and a membrane/tissue scaffold arranged about the plurality of filaments, wherein the membrane/tissue scaffold includes a surface structure configured to stabilize the support structure that fragments of the support structure are restricted from movement from a treatment site, and the membrane/tissue scaffold is configured to promote healthy tissue growth into the membrane/tissue encapsulation of at least a portion of the membrane, in a second time period, and remain with the tissue after degradation of the absorbable filaments, wherein the plurality of filaments are configured to apply appositional forces against a septum (14/16) such that the membrane facilitates tissue ingrowth close to the opening (18), and the waist (22) is configured to hold open, and structurally enhance, the space/opening, into which the apparatus is implanted, illustrated, for example, in Figures 9H and 10A ([0087]; [0094]; [0100] & [0107]); but does not specifically teach the second time period is less than the first time period such that tissue ingrowth renders structure provided by the support structure unnecessary prior to fracture of the support structure in the first time period, and that the plurality of filaments are wound together to define a wound wire support structure.
However, Cully teaches a vascular device comprising a biodegradable stent/support structure and a graft member/membrane configured to promote tissue ingrowth; wherein the stent/support structure is meant to provide sufficient structural support to the graft member/membrane for a “treatment period” which corresponds to a time required for sufficient tissue in-growth within the graft member/membrane, and the stent/support structure can degrade/fracture at a predictable rate/in a predictable timeframe after/longer than the “treatment period”, such that tissue ingrowth renders structure provided by the stent/support structure unnecessary prior to degradation/fracture of the stent/support structure (Cully: [0011], Lines 1-5; [0019] & [0024]). Additionally, Center teaches an apparatus (960) for impanation in an opening of a tissue, in the same field of endeavor, illustrated in Figures 50A-50D, wherein the apparatus can be formed in multiple ways including: from a single tube/sheet which is cut to form filaments, or from wound elongate wire members/filaments (Center: [0220]).
In view of the teachings of Cully and Center, it would have been obvious and well within the capability of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine appropriate materials for the plurality of filaments and/or the membrane, of the apparatus of Callaghan, such that the second time period, of tissue in-growth/tissue encapsulation, is less than the first time period, of degradation/fracture of the plurality of filaments, in order for the plurality of filaments to provide sufficient structural support to the membrane for a period of time longer than the “treatment period” which corresponds to a time required for tissue in-growth, such that tissue ingrowth renders structure provided by the support structure unnecessary prior to degradation/fracture of the support structure in the first time period, as taught by Cully. It is also to be noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, (see MPEP 2144.07). Additionally, it would further have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the support structure, of Callaghan, to be formed as a wound wire support structure by a plurality of filaments being wound together, since doing so amounts to a mere change in formation of the support structure from one known formation mechanism, i.e. making cuts in a single tube/sheet, to another known formation mechanism, i.e. a plurality of filaments wound together, since both are well-known art equivalent means of forming the support structure, as taught by Center (see MPEP 2144.06). Additionally, neither the claims, nor the originally filed specification gave any reason/benefit for, or criticality to, the parameter of the support structure including a plurality of filaments that are wound together to define a wound wire support structure, as opposed to having/being formed from another structure/formation mechanism.
Regarding claim 6, Callaghan in view of Cully and Center disclose the apparatus of claim 5, wherein Callaghan further teaches an elastic tensile member/string (137) coupled to the proximal hub (44) and the distal hub (39) and within the waist (22), illustrated in Figures 6A-6C, the elastic tensile member/string (137) being configured to bring the proximal disk (40) into apposition with a first side of a tissue wall (14/16) and the distal disk (30) into apposition with the second side of the tissue wall (14/16), illustrated in Figures 9H and 10A (Callaghan: [0091]; [0100]; [0101] & [0103], Last 5 Lines).
Regarding claim 9, Callaghan in view of Cully and Center disclose the apparatus of claim 7, wherein Center teaches a central hub (406) comprising winding filaments, illustrated in Figures 22A-23, the winding filaments allow the central hub to be flexible and permit rotation between the distal and proximal disks (Center:[0166]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the central hub, of the apparatus of Callaghan in view of Cully and Center, to comprise winding of filaments, in order to allow the central hub to be flexible and permit rotation between the distal and proximal disks, as taught by Center.
Regarding claim 10, Callaghan in view of Cully and Center disclose the apparatus of claim 7, wherein Callaghan further teaches the central hub (22) is a band of material operable to maintain a diameter of the waist during stretching of the apparatus, illustrated in Figures 2A-2H and 14A-14D (Callaghan: [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, Callaghan in view of Cully and Center disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein Callaghan further teaches the waist (22) is defined by central portions of the plurality of absorbable filaments (32/42/232/242), illustrated in Figures 2A-2H and 14A-14D (Callaghan: [0052] & [0102]).
Regarding claim 15, Callaghan in view of Cully and Center disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein Callaghan further teaches end portions of the plurality of filaments (1161) are bonded/formed together to define the hub (1144/1139/1122), illustrated in Figures 14A-14D (Callaghan: [0102], Lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 19, Callaghan in view of Cully and Center disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein Callaghan further teaches the catch member (131) includes an absorbable material (Callaghan: [0090], Lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 20, Callaghan in view of Cully and Center disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein Callaghan further teaches the catch member (131) is flexible in a mid- body portion to allow conformability of the disks (Callaghan: [0091] – to clarify, the catch member comprises delivery string 137 which is flexible).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callaghan in view of Cully and Center as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazzocchi et al. (US PG Pub. 2005/0119690), as previously presented, hereinafter Mazzocchi.
Regarding claim 14, Callaghan in view of Cully and Center disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein Callaghan further teaches the hub comprising first ends (1144/1139) of the plurality of filaments (1161), illustrated in Figures 14A-14D; but does not specifically disclose the hub including a band of material arranged about the first ends.
However, Mazzocchi teaches an apparatus, in the same field of endeavor, comprising a hub including a band of material (272/274) arranged about the ends, illustrated in Figure 11 ([0120]); the band of material can comprise a radiopaque material in order to increase visibility for fluoroscopic observation ([0119]).
In view of the teachings of Mazzocchi, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the hub(s) at the first ends of the plurality of filaments, of the apparatus of Callaghan in view of Cully and Center, to include a band of material comprising radiopaque material in order to increase visibility for fluoroscopic observation to aid in delivery and placement, as taught by Mazzocchi.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callaghan in view of Cully and Center as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cahill et al. (US PG Pub. 2007/025008 1), as previously presented, hereinafter Cahill.
Regarding claim 21, Callaghan in view of Cully and Center disclose the apparatus of claim 1, but do not specifically disclose the catch member is spring loaded to maintain apposition of the disks; though Callaghan does state that catch member (131) “may take a variety of forms” (Callaghan: [0091], Lines 1-2).
However, Cahill teaches an apparatus, in the same field of endeavor, wherein it comprises a catch member (50) is spring loaded to maintain apposition of the disks, illustrated in Figures 9A-14 ([0019]; [0085]; [0088] & [0089]).
In view of the teachings of Cahill, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the catch member, of the apparatus of Callaghan in view of Cully and Center, to be spring loaded to maintain apposition of the disks, since this is a known form of a catch member to deliver and expand the device/maintain apposition of the disks, as taught by Cahill.
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 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-12 and 24-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,911,272, hereinafter ‘272, in view of Cully and Center. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims disclose an occluding apparatus, for implantation in an opening, comprising a support structure including a plurality of filaments configured to degrade within a defined/first time period, the support structure including a proximal disk, a distal disk, and a waist, wherein the waist is operable to be positioned through the opening; and a membrane arranged about the plurality of filaments and configured to promote tissue ingrowth into the membrane/tissue encapsulation of at least a portion of the membrane in a second time period, and wherein the plurality of filaments define a hub; but the claims of ‘272 do not disclose the second time period is less than the first time period, and that the plurality of filaments are wound together to define a wound wire support structure. However, Cully teaches a vascular device comprising a biodegradable stent/support structure and a graft member/membrane configured to promote tissue ingrowth; wherein the stent/support structure is meant to provide sufficient structural support to the graft member/membrane for a "treatment period" which corresponds to a time required for sufficient tissue in-growth within the graft member/membrane, and the stent/support structure can degrade at a predictable rate/in a predictable timeframe after/longer than the "treatment period" (Cully: [0019] & [0024]). While Center teaches an apparatus for impanation in an opening of a tissue, in the same field of endeavor, illustrated in Figures 50A- 50D, wherein the apparatus can be formed in multiple ways including from wound elongate wire members/filaments (Center: [0220]). Thus, it would have been obvious and well within the capability of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine appropriate materials for the plurality of filaments/support structure and/or the membrane, of the occluding apparatus of the claims of ’272, such that the second time period, of tissue in-growth/tissue encapsulation, is less than the first time period, of degradation of the plurality of filaments, in order for the plurality of filaments to provide sufficient structural support to the membrane for a period of time longer than the "treatment period" which corresponds to a time required for tissue in-growth, as taught by Cully; and further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the support structure of the claims of ‘272 to be formed as a wound wire support structure by a plurality of filaments being wound together, since this is a well-known art equivalent means of forming the support structure, as taught by Center.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant arguses the rejection of independent claim 1, as being unpatentable over the prior art of Callaghan in view of Cully and Center, stating that Callaghan, Cully, or Center do not describe, or otherwise disclosed, the features of claim 1, specifically the feature that “the plurality of filaments are configured to degrade within a first time period resulting in fracture of the support structure in the first time period and a second time period that is less than the first time period such that tissue ingrowth renders structure provided by the support structure unnecessary prior to fracture of the support structure in the first time period”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. Callaghan teaches the apparatus/plurality of filaments can comprise a bioabsorbable polymer or metal (Callaghan: [0055]); and it is well known to one having ordinary skill in the art that a bioabsorbable polymer/metal would degrade in a given time period, i.e. a first time period. Callaghan also teaches a membrane/tissue scaffold configured to promote tissue growth into the membrane/tissue encapsulation of at least a portion of the membrane (Callaghan: [0094]); and it is well known to one having ordinary skill in the art that the tissue ingrowth would occur in a given time period, i.e. a second time period. Furthermore, Cully teaches a vascular device, in the same field of endeavor, comprising a biodegradable stent/support structure and a graft member/membrane configured to promote tissue ingrowth; wherein the stent/support structure is meant to provide sufficient structural support to the graft member/membrane for a “treatment period”, which corresponds to a time required for sufficient tissue in-growth within the graft member/membrane, and the stent/support structure can degrade/fracture at a predictable rate/in a predictable timeframe after/longer than the “treatment period”, such that tissue ingrowth renders structure provided by the stent/support structure unnecessary prior to degradation/fracture of the stent/support structure (Cully: [0011], Lines 1-5; [0019] & [0024]). Thus, it would have been obvious and well within the capability of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine appropriate materials for the plurality of filaments and/or the membrane, of the apparatus of Callaghan, such that the second time period, of tissue in-growth/tissue encapsulation, is less than the first time period, of degradation/fracture of the plurality of filaments, in order for the plurality of filaments to provide sufficient structural support to the membrane for a period of time longer than the “treatment period” which corresponds to a time required for tissue in-growth, such that tissue ingrowth renders structure provided by the support structure unnecessary prior to degradation/fracture of the support structure in the first time period, as taught by Cully. Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 1, as being unpatentable over the prior art of Callaghan in view of Cully and Center, is deemed to be proper since all the structural limitations set forth in the claim are taught; hence, the rejection stands.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINAH BARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am - 5pm.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached at 408-918-7557. 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.
/DINAH BARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 01/06/2026