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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 2, “the success rate” should read “a success rate”
In claim 13, lines 1-2, “a field strength of between 0.5 and 10…” should read “a field strength between 0.5 and 10…”
In claim 16, line 1, “the Akt/PI3K pathway” should read “a Akt/PI3K pathway”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Effect of Electric Stimulation on Human Chondrocytes and Mesenchymal Stem Cells Under Normoxia and Hypoxia, 2018 (herein referred to as Hiemer) in view of Brighton (U.S. PGPub No. 2003/0125769) and Cartilage Grafting, 2019 (herein referred to as Agrawal).
Regarding claim 1, Hiemer teaches a method of applying electric fields to a cartilage graft made of human chondrocytes and mesenchymal stem cells (Test System for ES Section, lines 1-4) comprising: applying alternating electric fields to the cells (Cell Experiments Section, lines 25-28), at a frequency (Cell Experiments Section, lines 25-26) for a period of time (Cell Experiment Section, lines 28-30).
Hiemer does not teach a method of treating a subject having a cartilage graft by applying alternating electric fields to a target site of the subject, wherein the target site comprises the cartilage graft. Brighton, however, teaches methods and a device (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0060, line 1, 10) for regulation of aggrecan gene expression in cartilage cells that involves applying alternating electric fields at a frequency for a period of time (Paragraph 0043, lines 1-6 and Paragraph 0048, lines 5-8) to a target site of a subject (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-5). Brighton teaches that the target site is cartilage cells in the knee of a subject (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0039, lines 3-7).
Brighton does not teach that the target site comprises a cartilage graft. Agrawal, however, discusses a variety of cartilage grafting techniques, including cultured autografts. Agrawal teaches that cultured autografts can be created by harvesting cartilage slices from a non-weight bearing portion of the knee for culture, and then later re-implanting the graft into the knee of the patient (Autologous Cartilage Implantation Section, lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiemer to incorporate the teachings of Brighton and Agrawal to include that the electric fields can be applied to a target site of a subject, wherein the target site comprises a cartilage graft. Doing so would ensure that aggrecan genes can be up-regulated in order to repair cartilage (Paragraph 0042, lines 6-8), as recognized by Brighton. Doing so would also allow the repair of cartilage defects in a patient (Autologous Cartilage Implantation Section, lines 1-2) that may have osteoarthritis, as recognized by Agrawal.
Regarding claim 2, Hiemer in view of Brighton and Agrawal discloses the claimed invention of claim 1. Hiemer further discloses the method (Test System for ES Section, lines 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the alternating electric fields promote chondrogenesis within the cartilage graft (Discussion Section, lines 101-110), thereby increasing the success rate of the cartilage graft.
Although Hiemer does not explicitly teach that promoting chondrogenesis increases the success rate of the cartilage graft, the courts have held that “a whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” (Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc, 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). MPEP § 2111.04-I.
Regarding claim 4, Hiemer teaches a method of applying electric fields to a cartilage graft made of human chondrocytes and mesenchymal stem cells (Test System for ES Section, lines 1-4) that promotes chondrogenesis within the cartilage graft (Discussion Section, lines 101-110) comprising: applying alternating electric fields to the cells (Cell Experiments Section, lines 25-28), at a frequency (Cell Experiments Section, lines 25-26) for a period of time (Cell Experiment Section, lines 28-30).
Hiemer does not teach a method of promoting chondrogenesis in a subject having a cartilage graft by applying alternating electric fields to a target site of the subject, wherein the target site comprises the cartilage graft. Brighton, however, teaches methods and a device (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0060, line 1, 10) for regulation of aggrecan gene expression in cartilage cells that involves applying alternating electric fields at a frequency for a period of time (Paragraph 0043, lines 1-6 and Paragraph 0048, lines 5-8) to a target site of a subject (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-5). Brighton teaches that the target site is cartilage cells in the knee of a subject (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0039, lines 3-7).
Brighton does not teach that the target site comprises a cartilage graft. Agrawal, however, discusses a variety of cartilage grafting techniques, including cultured autografts. Agrawal teaches that cultured autografts can be created by harvesting cartilage slices from a non-weight bearing portion of the knee for culture, and then later re-implanting the graft into the knee of the patient (Autologous Cartilage Implantation Section, lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiemer to incorporate the teachings of Brighton and Agrawal to include that the electric fields can be applied to a target site of a subject, wherein the target site comprises a cartilage graft. Doing so would ensure that aggrecan genes can be up-regulated in order to repair cartilage (Paragraph 0042, lines 6-8), as recognized by Brighton. Doing so would also allow the repair of cartilage defects in a patient (Autologous Cartilage Implantation Section, lines 1-2) that may have osteoarthritis, as recognized by Agrawal.
Regarding claim 5, Hiemer in view of Brighton and Agrawal discloses the claimed invention of claim 1. Hiemer further discloses the method (Test System for ES Section, lines 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the cartilage graft is a scaffold (Abstract Section, lines 8-11) that mimics articular cartilage or autologous chondrocyte implantation (Introduction Section, lines 17-32).
Regarding claim 6, Hiemer in view of Brighton and Agrawal discloses the claimed invention of claim 1. Hiemer further discloses the method (Test System for ES Section, lines 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the cartilage graft comprises mesenchymal stem cells (Abstract Section, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 8, Hiemer in view of Brighton and Agrawal disclose the claimed invention, except for that the method further comprises administering an anti-inflammatory, an antibiotic, an osteoarthritis drug, or a pain management medication to the subject. Brighton, however, teaches methods and a device (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0060, line 1, 10) for regulation of aggrecan gene expression in cartilage cells that involves applying alternating electric fields at a frequency for a period of time (Paragraph 0043, lines 1-6 and Paragraph 0048, lines 5-8). Brighton further teaches that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) remain the primary treatment modality for osteoarthritis (Paragraph 0005, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try administering an anti-inflammatory osteoarthritis drug to the subject during said treatment method, as this would lead to a reasonable expectation of success of relieving the subject of osteoarthritic symptoms.
Regarding claim 10, Hiemer in view of Brighton and Agrawal discloses the claimed invention of claim 1. It is noted that the entire disclosures of Hiemer and Brighton make no mention of the subject having cancer or not having cancer. As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the methods and devices proposed by Hiemer and Brighton could be used on a subject who “does not have cancer or has not been diagnosed with cancer”.
Regarding claim 11, Hiemer discloses the method (Test System for ES Section, lines 1-4) of claim 1 that involves applying alternating electric fields to the cells (Cell Experiments Section, lines 25-28). Hiemer does not teach that the frequency of the alternating electric field is between 100 kHz and 10 MHz. Brighton, however, teaches methods and a device (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0060, line 1, 10) for regulation of aggrecan gene expression in cartilage cells that involves applying alternating electric fields at a frequency for a period of time (Paragraph 0043, lines 1-6 and Paragraph 0048, lines 5-8). Brighton teaches that one of the electric field frequencies applied to the cells is 120 kHz (Paragraph 0057, lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiemer to incorporate the teachings of Brighton to include that the frequency of the alternating electric field is between 100 kHz and 10 MHz. Doing so would ensure that various frequencies can be applied using the alternating electric field to determine the proper parameters that provide the desired effect on gene expression (Paragraph 0036, lines 13-17), as recognized by Brighton.
Regarding claim 12, Hiemer in view of Brighton and Agrawal teaches the claimed invention except for that the frequency of the alternating electric field is 210 – 400 kHz. Hiemer discloses that the frequency of the alternating electric field used in the study was 1 kHz (Abstract Section, lines 13-14). Brighton discloses that the frequencies of the alternating electric field used in the method were 30 kHz, 60 kHz, and 120 kHz (Paragraph 0057, lines 1-4).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the frequency of the alternating electric field would result in a difference in the outcome of the disclosed methods in both Hiemer and Brighton. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the frequency of the alternating electric fields disclosed in both Hiemer and Brighton, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification, and it appears that the method would still promote chondrogenesis. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the frequency of the alternating electric field “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges or values (e.g. between 25 kHz and 1MHz at Paragraph 0040), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frequencies of the alternating electric fields of Hiemer and Brighton to have a frequency of 210 – 400 kHz as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 13, Hiemer in view of Brighton and Agrawal teaches the claimed invention except for that the field strength of the alternating electric field is between 0.5 and 10 V/cm RMS. Hiemer discloses that the field strength of the alternating electric field used in the study was 0.7 V RMS (Test System for ES Section, line 16). Brighton discloses that the field strengths of the alternating electric field used in the method were 1 mV/cm, 5 mV/cm, 10 mV/cm, 20 mV/cm, and 40 mV/cm (Paragraph 0055, lines 1-4).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the field strength of the alternating electric field would result in a difference in the outcome of the disclosed methods in both Hiemer and Brighton. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the field strength of the alternating electric fields disclosed in both Hiemer and Brighton, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification, and it appears that the method would still promote chondrogenesis. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the field strength of the alternating electric field “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges or values (e.g. between 0.1 V/cm RMS and 10 V/cm RMS at Paragraph 0041), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the field strengths of the alternating electric fields of Hiemer and Brighton to have a field strength of 0.5 – 10 V/cm RMS as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 14, Hiemer in view of Brighton and Agrawal teaches the claimed invention except for that the field strength of the alternating electric field is 0.9 V/cm RMS. Hiemer discloses that the field strength of the alternating electric field used in the study was 0.7 V RMS (Test System for ES Section, line 16). Brighton discloses that the field strengths of the alternating electric field used in the method were 1 mV/cm, 5 mV/cm, 10 mV/cm, 20 mV/cm, and 40 mV/cm (Paragraph 0055, lines 1-4).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the field strength of the alternating electric field would result in a difference in the outcome of the disclosed methods in both Hiemer and Brighton. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the field strength of the alternating electric fields disclosed in both Hiemer and Brighton, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification, and it appears that the method would still promote chondrogenesis. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the field strength of the alternating electric field “may” be the claimed value, and offering other acceptable ranges or values (e.g. between 0.1 V/cm RMS and 10 V/cm RMS at Paragraph 0041), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the field strengths of the alternating electric fields of Hiemer and Brighton to have a field strength of 0.9 V/cm RMS as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stop applying treatment to a subject once the desired outcome of the treatment has been reached. In this case, the treatment being the application of an alternating electrical field for the purpose of eliminating pain in the subject and/or allowing the patient to have full mobility at the site of the cartilage graft.
Regarding claim 17, Hiemer teaches the method (Test System for ES Section, lines 1-4) of claim 1. Hiemer does not teach that the target site is a joint, ear, nose, or breast. Brighton, however, teaches methods and a device (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0060, line 1, 10) for regulation of aggrecan gene expression in cartilage cells that involves applying alternating electric fields at a frequency for a period of time (Paragraph 0043, lines 1-6 and Paragraph 0048, lines 5-8) to a target site of a subject (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-5). Brighton teaches that the target site is cartilage cells in the knee of a subject (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0039, lines 3-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiemer to incorporate the teachings of Brighton to include that the target site is a joint. Doing so would ensure that osteoarthritis of the knee can be treated (Paragraph 0060, lines 1-3) by minimizing further articular cartilage deterioration and healing articular cartilage that is damaged or degenerated (Paragraph 0061, lines 7-10), as recognized by Brighton.
Regarding claim 19, Hiemer teaches the method (Test System for ES Section, lines 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the alternating electric fields promote chondrogenesis within the cartilage graft (Discussion Section, lines 101-110), thereby increasing the success rate of the cartilage graft.
Although Hiemer does not explicitly teach that promoting chondrogenesis increases the success rate of the cartilage graft, the courts have held that “a whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” (Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc, 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). MPEP § 2111.04-I.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that increasing the success rate of the cartilage graft would lead to a quicker return to pain-free activities for a subject receiving the cartilage graft compared to a subject receiving a cartilage graft without an alternating electric field, as Hiemer demonstrates that the alternating electric field promotes chondrogenesis in the cartilage graft, and in turn increases success of the graft.
Regarding claim 20, Hiemer in view of Brighton and Agrawal discloses the claimed invention of claim 1. Hiemer further discloses the method (Test System for ES Section, lines 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the alternating electric field promotes chondrogenesis at the cartilage graft (Discussion Section, lines 101-110).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Effect of Electric Stimulation on Human Chondrocytes and Mesenchymal Stem Cells Under Normoxia and Hypoxia, 2018 (herein referred to as Hiemer) in view of Brighton (U.S. PGPub No. 2003/0125769), Cartilage Grafting, 2019 (herein referred to as Agrawal), and Chondroinductive/Chondroconductive Peptides and Their-Functionalized Biomaterials for Cartilage Tissue Engineering, 2022 (herein referred to as Zhu).
Regarding claim 3, Hiemer teaches a method of applying electric fields to a cartilage graft made of human chondrocytes and mesenchymal stem cells (Test System for ES Section, lines 1-4) comprising: applying alternating electric fields to the cells (Cell Experiments Section, lines 25-28), at a frequency (Cell Experiments Section, lines 25-26) for a period of time (Cell Experiment Section, lines 28-30).
Hiemer does not teach a method of increasing N-cadherin expression in a subject having a cartilage graft by applying alternating electric fields to a target site of the subject, wherein the target site comprises the cartilage graft. Brighton, however, teaches methods and a device (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0060, line 1, 10) for regulation of aggrecan gene expression in cartilage cells that involves applying alternating electric fields at a frequency for a period of time (Paragraph 0043, lines 1-6 and Paragraph 0048, lines 5-8) to a target site of a subject (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-5). Brighton teaches that the target site is cartilage cells in the knee of a subject (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0039, lines 3-7).
Brighton does not teach that the target site comprises a cartilage graft. Agrawal, however, discusses a variety of cartilage grafting techniques, including cultured autografts. Agrawal teaches that cultured autografts can be created by harvesting cartilage slices from a non-weight bearing portion of the knee for culture, and then later re-implanting the graft into the knee of the patient (Autologous Cartilage Implantation Section, lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiemer to incorporate the teachings of Brighton and Agrawal to include that the electric fields can be applied to a target site of a subject, wherein the target site comprises a cartilage graft. Doing so would ensure that aggrecan genes can be up-regulated in order to repair cartilage (Paragraph 0042, lines 6-8), as recognized by Brighton. Doing so would also allow the repair of cartilage defects in a patient (Autologous Cartilage Implantation Section, lines 1-2) that may have osteoarthritis, as recognized by Agrawal.
Hiemer does teach that the alternating electric fields promote chondrogenesis within the cartilage graft (Discussion Section, lines 101-110). Hiemer does not teach that N-cadherin expression is increased at the target site. Zhu, however, teaches that N-cadherins play an essential role for mesenchymal cell condensation during chondrogenesis…by promoting cell-to-cell interactions (Section 4.2.1, lines 6-8). Furthermore, Zhu teaches that chondrogenic marker genes are upregulated in the presence of N-cadherins (Section 4.2.1, lines 66-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiemer to incorporate the teachings of Zhu to specify that the method involves increasing N-cadherin expression in a subject having a cartilage graft. It would be well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that an increase in N-cadherin expression promotes chondrogenesis, as disclosed by Zhu. Furthermore, it would be obvious to specify that N-cadherin expression is increased at the target site, as this would yield the predictable result of promoting chondrogenesis.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiemer in view of Brighton and Agrawal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PI3K/Akt Signaling as a Key Regulatory Pathway for Chondrocyte Terminal Differentiation, 2008 (herein referred to as Kita).
Regarding claim 16, Hiemer teaches the method (Test System for ES Section,
lines 1-4) of claim 1 that promotes chondrogenesis within the cartilage graft (Discussion Section, lines 101-110). Hiemer does not teach that the Akt/PI3K pathway is upregulated. Kita, however, teaches that the Akt/PI3K pathway promotes chondrogenic commitment, and augments proliferation and cartilage matrix synthesis (Discussion Section, lines 28-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiemer to incorporate the teachings of Kita to specify that the Akt/PI3K pathway is upregulated. It would be well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that upregulating the Akt/PI3K pathway promotes chondrogenesis, as disclosed by Kita. Furthermore, it would be obvious to specify that the Akt/PI3K pathway is upregulated, as this would yield the predictable result of promoting chondrogenesis.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiemer in view of Brighton and Agrawal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chondroinductive/Chondroconductive Peptides and Their-Functionalized Biomaterials for Cartilage Tissue Engineering, 2022 (herein referred to as Zhu).
Regarding claim 18, Hiemer teaches the method (Test System for ES Section,
lines 1-4) of claim 1 that promotes chondrogenesis within the cartilage graft (Discussion Section, lines 101-110). Hiemer does not teach that N-cadherin expression is increased at the target site. Zhu, however, teaches that N-cadherins play an essential role for mesenchymal cell condensation during chondrogenesis…by promoting cell-to-cell interactions (Section 4.2.1, lines 6-8). Furthermore, Zhu teaches that chondrogenic marker genes are upregulated in the presence of N-cadherins (Section 4.2.1, lines 66-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiemer to incorporate the teachings of Zhu to specify that N-cadherin expression is increased at the target site. It would be well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that an increase in N-cadherin expression promotes chondrogenesis, as disclosed by Zhu. Furthermore, it would be obvious to specify that N-cadherin expression is increased at the target site, as this would yield the predictable result of promoting chondrogenesis.
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 would be allowable for disclosing the method of claim 1, wherein the
subject received the cartilage graft at least 24 hours before applying the alternating electric fields. Hiemer, Brighton, Agrawal, Zhu, and Kita do not disclose the subject receiving the cartilage graft at least 24 hours before applying the alternating electric fields, and thus this claim would be allowable.
Claim 9 would be allowable for disclosing the method of claim 1, further comprising implanting the cartilage graft prior to applying the alternating electric fields. Hiemer, Brighton, Agrawal, Zhu, and Kita do not disclose implanting the cartilage graft prior to applying the alternating electric fields, and thus this claim would be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yoo et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2025/0134933) discloses a composition for treatment of cartilage-related disease and a preparation method therefor that involves applying an electric stimulus to a stem cell aggregate (Abstract).
Brighton (U.S. PGPub No. 2004/0073260) discloses methods and devices for the regulation of type II collagen gene expression in cartilage cells via the application of electric signals in the treatment of diseased or injured articular cartilage (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights