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 .
Applicants’ amendment to the claims filed on 8/20/2024 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
Claims 81-100 are pending.
Claim 1-80 are canceled.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of this national stage entry of PCT/IB2022/000349 filed on 6/21/2022, which claims domestic priority to U.S. provisional application 63/212,993, filed on 6/21/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2023 and 4/22/2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 12/20/2023 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112a
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 96-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a conclusion one can come to after "preparing the plurality of microparticles of claim 81” and , which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). In paragraph 0010 of the instant application specification, Applicant recites ‘where the plurality of microparticles is essentially or substantially cross-linker-free; and where the plurality of microparticles is water insoluble’ (Instant Application Specification, para 0010). Regarding claim 96 (claims 97 dependent thereof), the preamble states “microparticle of claim 81” but the end result is a “microparticle comprising size-reduced cross linked foam.” There is no recitation of any foam in claim 81. Regarding claim 98, the end result is not a microparticle but a “plurality of cross-linked foam or hydrogel particles.” The entire method including the preamble and the steps involved do not convey to one skilled in the art as to what this method is all about and its purpose. While claims can be broad it cannot be so broad such that its boundaries are not clear. The test is so broad such that one of skill in the art cannot envision the four corners of the breadth. Appropriate correction is suggested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 81-100 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.
The phrase “essentially cross-linker-free” in claim 81 (claims 82-100 dependent thereof) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term "essentially” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it is broad or limited. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) III A. Appropriate correction is suggested.
Regarding claim 84, the recitation of the phrase ‘engineered protein’ is indefinite because it is unclear what the scope of the phrase is intended to encompass structurally. It is unclear what the ‘engineered protein’ is intended to encompass. It is unclear from the claims and specification what the phrase ‘engineered protein’ is referring to structurally and functionally. In addition, the recitation “any engineered polymer comprising a RGD motif” scope is unclear as it is substantially broader than the recitation “the engineered protein.” Accordingly, the metes and bounds upon which patent protection is sought cannot be ascertained from this phrase.
Claim 96 (claims 97-98 dependent thereof) recite the phrases ‘reducing in size.’ The term "reducing" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "reducing" is a term of degree, and there is no indication what the percentage is being compared. Accordingly, the metes and bounds upon which patent protection is sought cannot be ascertained from the claims. It is suggested that applicant clarify the meaning of the claims. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162 (Feb. 9, 2011), page 7165.
Additionally, there is a disconnect between “the preamble of the claim and the end result of the method”.
Regarding claim 99, the recitation of the phrase ‘body contouring’ is indefinite because it is unclear what the scope of the phrase is intended to encompass structurally. It is unclear what the ‘body contouring’ is intended to encompass. It is unclear from the claims and specification what the phrase ‘body contouring is referring to structurally and functionally. Accordingly, the metes and bounds upon which patent protection is sought cannot be ascertained from this phrase.
Regarding claim 100, the recitation of the phrase ‘under conditions inducing protein synthesis’ is indefinite because it is unclear what the scope of the phrase is intended to encompass structurally. It is unclear what the ‘under conditions inducing protein synthesis’ is intended to encompass. It is unclear from the claims and specification what the phrase ‘under conditions inducing protein synthesis’ is referring to structurally and functionally. Accordingly, the metes and bounds upon which patent protection is sought cannot be ascertained from this phrase.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 81-84, 86-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Attar et al (US 2018/0256641 A1, Date of Publication: Sep. 13, 2018, Examiner cited) {herein Attar} as evidenced by Asim et al (2023, Adv Healthc mater, Examiner cited) {herein Asim}. See MPEP 2131.01 regarding multiple reference 102 rejections.
Claims 81-84, 86-94 are drawn to a plurality of microparticles, comprising:(a) a cross-linked protein, wherein said cross-linked protein comprises at least one RGD (Arg- Gly-Asp) motif; wherein the plurality of microparticles is essentially cross-linker-free; wherein the plurality of microparticles is water insoluble.
With respect to claims 81-84, 86-9, 92, 94, Attar teaches a composition of a plurality of microparticles comprising cross-linkable protein that comprises gelatin that is mixed with cross-linker transglutaminase (para 0169) and dissolved in water to form a cross-linked foam (para 0323, 0324, 0325) at 37C (para 0182) or a hydrogel (para 0127). Evidentiary reference of Asim is recited to demonstrated that gelatin is natively comprised of RGD sequences (page 4, para 2). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the cross-linkable protein (gelatin) comprises at least one RGD motif, as recited in the instant application claim 81. Attar further teaches the a carrier binds the cross-linking enzyme (para 0080). Furthermore, Attar teaches the composition of the invention is a substantially dry gelatin configured to form a foam (para 0122). In some embodiments, the particle size is between 2-250 microns (para 0126). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the plurality of particles taught by Attar would inherently be comprised of at least two different particle sizes as the particle size ranges between 2-250 microns. Attar further teaches the carrier is purified from solution (para 0139). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the carrier is wet as Attar teaches its purification from solution (para 0139).
With respect to claim 93, Attar teaches the carrier comprised hyaluronic acid, (para 0234) which is known by those of ordinary skill in the art to be the same as hyaluronan polymers, of which, absent evidence otherwise, is the Examiner’s position that hyaluronic acid (hyaluronan) it native form is un-crosslinked hyaluronan polymers as Attar does not teach it to be modified.
For the reasons stated herein, the teachings of Attar anticipate claims 81-84, 86-94.
Claims 96-97, 99-100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Attar et al (US 2018/0256641 A1, Date of Publication: Sep. 13, 2018, Examiner cited) {herein Attar} as evidenced by Asim et al (2023, Adv Healthc mater, Examiner cited) {herein Asim}. See MPEP 2131.01 regarding multiple reference 102 rejections.
Claims 96-97 are drawn to a method of preparing the plurality of microparticles of claim 81, comprising:(a) mixing a cross-linkable protein solution and a cross-linker solution, wherein the cross-linkable protein solution comprises dissolving a cross- linkable protein comprising at least one RGD (Arg-Gly-Asp) motif in a liquid; wherein the cross-linker solution comprises dissolving a cross-linker in a liquid; (b) forming a cross-linked foam or hydrogel block comprising the mixed cross-linkable protein solution and cross-linker solution of (a); (c) removing the cross-linker from the cross-linked foam or hydrogel block of (b) to form a cross-linker-free foam or hydrogel block; and (d) reducing in size: the formed cross-linked foam or hydrogel block of (b), the cross- linker-free foam or hydrogel block of (c), or combinations of the formed cross- linked foam or hydrogel block of (b) and the cross-linker-free foam or hydrogel block of (c), to form a plurality of microparticles comprising size-reduced cross- linked foam of (b) and/or size-reduced cross-linker-free foam of (c).
Claim 99 is drawn to a method of treating a subject in need of body contouring, comprising administering the composition of claim 82 at a site of the subject in need of body contouring.
Claim 100 is drawn to a method of producing a cell-free protein, comprising: growing a plurality of protein-producing cells in a cell culture comprising the plurality of microparticles of claim 81 and culture medium, wherein growing occurs under conditions inducing protein synthesis, thereby producing a cell-free protein.
With respect to claims 96-97, 99-100, Attar teaches a method wherein cross-linkable protein that comprises gelatin is mixed with cross-linker transglutaminase (para 0169) and dissolved in water to form a cross-linked foam (para 0323, 0324, 0325) at 37C (para 0182). Evidentiary reference of Asim is recited to demonstrated that gelatin is natively comprised of RGD sequences (page 4, para 2). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the cross-linkable protein (gelatin) comprises at least one RGD motif, as recited in the instant application claim 81. Attar further teaches cells containing the gelatin mix were seeded on tissue culture treated plastic (para 0375) Subsequently, the cells were separated from the gelatin composition (para 0385). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that said composition is cell-free gelatin as Attar teaches the cells were separated from the composition (para 0385). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the crosslinker transglutaminase and cross-linkable protein gelatin would necessarily have to be ‘whipped’ together to form the foam as it is known by those of ordinary skill in that art that foam is made by ‘whipping’ component together. Additionally, it is the Examiner’s position that a hydrogel is necessarily formed by the reaction of the gelatin and transglutaminase as it is known by those of ordinary skill in that art that the cross-linking of natural fibers such as gelatin form stable structures. Attar further teaches that cross-linking enzyme is purified from carrier proteins (para 0139). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the cross-linker transglutaminase, would necessarily be removed from the cross-linked foam, forming a cross-linker free foam, as Attar teaches the cross-linker is eluted from the carrier proteins that are within the gelatin composition. Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the formed cross-linked foam would necessarily be reduced in size as Attar teaches a method of preparing a plurality of microparticles by utilizing gelatin and a crosslinker enzyme of transglutaminase to form a foam size-reduced cross-linked foam (para 0169, 0323, 0324, 0345, 0084). Furthermore, said composition can be used for facial contouring (para 0280).
For the reasons stated herein, the teachings of Attar anticipate claims 96-97, 99-100.
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 85, 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attar et al (US 2018/0256641 A1, Date of Publication: Sep. 13, 2018, Examiner cited) {herein Attar} as evidenced by Asim et al (2023, Adv Healthc mater, Examiner cited) {herein Asim}.
Claim 85 is drawn to the composition of claim 82, wherein the cross-linked protein comprises the RGD motif in a range of 0.1 µg/mg - 50 µg/mg.
Claim 95 is drawn to the composition of claim 83, wherein the composition comprises a concentration of the plurality of microparticles in the carrier of: 1 mg/ml or greater, 300 mg/ml or less, or 1 mg/ml - 300 mg/ml.
The teachings of Attar as applied to claims 81-84, 86-94 are setforth in the 102a1a2 rejection above.
However, Attar does not teach wherein the cross-linked protein comprises the RGD motif in a range of 0.1 g/mg - 50 µg/mg (claim 85). Attar does not teach wherein the composition comprises a concentration of the plurality of microparticles in the carrier of: 1 mg/ml or greater, 300 mg/ml or less, or 1 mg/ml - 300 mg/ml (claim 95).
With respect to claims 85, 95, although the reference of Attar does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 85 (wherein the cross-linked protein comprises the RGD motif in a range of 0.1 µg/mg - 50 µg/mg)—These units are incorrectly quoted here. These are NOT claim limitations. and claim 95 (wherein the composition comprises a concentration of the plurality of microparticles in the carrier of: 1 mg/ml or greater, 300 mg/ml or less, or 1 mg/ml - 300 mg/ml), MPEP 2144.05 states"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)." One of ordinary skill would desire to optimize the RGD motif and plurality of microparticles depending on the particular application. It would be routine for one to arrive at the RGD motif and plurality of microparticles for the application they intend on using the composition. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious.
Claim 98 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attar et al (US 2018/0256641 A1, Date of Publication: Sep. 13, 2018, Examiner cited) {herein Attar} as evidenced by Asim et al (2023, Adv Healthc mater, Examiner cited) {herein Asim}.
Claim 98 is drawn to the method of claim 96, further comprising: (e) freezing the cross-linker-free foam or hydrogel block of (c) or plurality of particles of (d); (f) lyophilizing the frozen cross-linker-free foam or hydrogel block of (e); and (g) reducing in size the lyophilized cross-linker-free foam or hydrogel block of (f) to form a plurality of cross-linked foam or hydrogel particles.
The teachings of Attar as applied to claims 96-97, 99-100 are set forth in the 102a1 rejection above.
However, Attar does not teach (e) freezing the cross-linker-free foam or hydrogel block of (c) or plurality of particles of (d); (f) lyophilizing the frozen cross-linker-free foam or hydrogel block of (e); and (g) reducing in size the lyophilized cross-linker-free foam or hydrogel block of (f) to form a plurality of cross-linked foam or hydrogel particles (claim 98).
With respect to claim 98, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to freeze-dry and lyophilize the cross-linker-free foam as doing so would increase the shelf-life of the composition. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the freeze-dried and lyophilized cross-linker free foam would necessarily for a plurality of cross-linker foam as it is known by those of ordinary skill in the art that when a composition is freeze-dried and lyophilized, it would necessarily form a plurality of particles as the composition is a dried and free of moisture. Supporting the Examiner’s position is the evidentiary reference of Cytiva (2024, cytiva, Examiner cited) which recites the low temperature dehydration process of freeze drying maximizes product or sample stability and shelf-life, maintains chemical or biological function and enables easier transportation and storage or samples (page 1, para 1).-
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of the cross-linker free foam to that which will prolong its shelf-life. Especially since it is well-known in the industry that freeze-drying and lyophilizing protein compositions is effective at maintaining its quality and activity over an extended period of time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated, have had a reasonable expectation of success, a reasonable level of predictability to freeze-dry and lyophilize the plurality of microparticles to help maintain its activity and reduce the need for specialized storage. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to freeze-dry and lyophilize the plurality of microparticles as doing so would reduce the probability of microbial contamination and would allow for the production and storage of the plurality of microparticles for its subsequent utilization over an extended period of time. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Nonstatutory 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 81-95 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11331412 B2 which are commonly owned and have common inventors and filed before the instant application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are drawn to a composition, wherein the pores of the foam scaffold are from 1 to 500 microns in diameter, the composition comprising: a cross-linkable protein comprising at least one RGD (Arg-Gly-Asp) motif; and a cross-linker which induces cross-linking of the cross linkable protein.
The instant application claims 81-85, 91, 93-95 are not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘412 because claim 1 of ‘412 recites ‘the composition comprising: a cross-linkable protein comprising at least one RGD (Arg-Gly-Asp) motif; and a cross-linker which induces cross-linking of the cross linkable protein,’ which is not patentably distinct from the instant application claims 81-85, 91, 93-95.
The instant application claims 87-90, 92 are not patentably distinct from claim 2 of ‘412 because claim 2 of ‘412 recites ‘wherein the cross-linkable protein is introduced into the composition as a micronized protein powder, having an average particle size between 5 to 200 microns’ which is not patentably distinct from the instant application claims 87-90, 92.
The instant application claim 86 is not patentably distinct from claim 3 of ‘412 because claim 3 of ‘412 recites ‘, wherein the cross-linkable protein is selected from the group consisting of collagen and
gelatin’ which is not patentably distinct from the instant application claim 86.
Claims 81-95 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 of U.S. Patent No. US10596194 which are commonly owned and have seven common inventors and filed before the instant application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are drawn to a composition, comprising: a closed-cell foam; wherein the composition comprises: a. cross-linkable gelatin; b. a cross-linker; and c. a liquid, wherein the composition is a porous scaffold, having a pore size from 2 to 500 microns.
The instant application claims 81-95 are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 5 of ‘194 because claims 1, 5 of ‘194 recites ‘a composition, wherein the composition comprises: a. cross-linkable gelatin; b. a cross-linker; and c. a liquid, having a pore size from 2 to 500 microns,’ which is not patentably distinct from the instant application claims 81-95.
Conclusion
Status of claims
Claims 81-100 are pending.
Claim 1-80 are canceled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0360. The examiner can normally be reached mf 7:30a - 4:30p.
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, Manjunath Rao can be reached at 571-272-0939. 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.
/ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656