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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 as filed April 18, 2024 are under consideration.
The instant application is a divisional (DIV) of Application No. 16/866,739 filed May 5, 2020 (now abandoned), which is a continuation-in-part (CIP) of Application No. 16/668,691 filed October 30, 2019 (now abandoned).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 29, 2024, October 16, 2024, April 11, 2025 and November 12, 2025 were considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear. See 37 CFR 1.84 (u) and MPEP 608.02.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1: 62/753,981 was filed in 2018.
All box (□) icons (e.g., pages 3, 6) should be replaced with the appropriate text.
All references to Fig. 1 (e.g., page 8) should be updated consistent with the Drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “into/onto” should presumably recite “into and/or onto”.
Claim 14: “CMC” should presumably recite “carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)” as disclosed at page 3.
Claim 14: a coordinating conjunction should be included within the list.
Claim 16: “and bulk density” should presumably recite “a bulk density”.
Claim 17: a coordinating conjunction should be included before “a dimension”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/668,691.
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/668,691, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed application does not disclose at least 90% of the powder ranges from 10 to 2000 microns, from 50 to 300 microns as required by claims 8, 9; does not disclose hammer mill processing as required by claims 12, 20; does not disclose the distribution as required by claims 13, 15; does not disclose the additives as required by claim 14; does not disclose the bulk density as required by claim 16; does not disclose the fibrils as required by claim 17; does not disclose the flowability as required by claim 18. The earliest date potentially available to these claims is May 5, 2020.
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 62/753,981 and 262716, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed applications do not disclose a carboxyl content of about 9 to about 21 but rather 12 to 21 or 12 to 24 (e.g., pages 4, 18-19 of 62/753,981). The earliest date potentially available to claim 1 is October 30, 2019.
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 14 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites other polysaccharides. It is unclear what is encompassed by other polysaccharides.
Claim 17 recites a sphericity. It is unclear how the quantitative sphericity is calculated or/and related to the fibrils and the specification fails to remedy the ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites the carboxyl content of the ORC is equal to or below 18%, claim 2 recites the OC comprises ORC, and claim 1 recites the carboxyl content of the OC is about 9 to 21%. Because the range of below 18% of claim 3 omits the lower boundary of about 9% of claim 1, claim 3 fails to include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaikh et al. “Oxidised cellulose powder for hemostasis following sinus surgery: a pilot randomised trial,” The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 1 of 5, 2014 as evidenced by Bloodcare, last revised May 2018.
Al-Shaikh teaches application of Bloodcare oxidized cellulose powder onto bleeding mucosal surfaces (page 2, lhc, 5th full paragraph). Oxidized cellulose produces hemostasis without inducing synechiae (adhesion) formation (abstract; page 1, rhc, 2nd full paragraph).
As evidenced by Bloodcare, Bloodcare oxidized cellulose has a content of carboxyl groups which ranges from 16 to 24%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the adhesion prevention potency as compared to a fabric as required by claim 11, because Al-Shaikh is in possession of a method as instantly claimed, it necessarily follows that the practice of the method of Al-Shaikh must also achieve the results instantly claimed.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaikh et al. “Oxidised cellulose powder for hemostasis following sinus surgery: a pilot randomised trial,” The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 1 of 5, 2014 as evidenced by Bloodcare, last revised May 2018 as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Diamond “Reduction in postoperative adhesion development,” Fertility and Sterility 106(5):994-997, 2016 as evidenced by Gensini (US 2013/0084324, published April 4, 2013, IDS reference filed July 29, 2024).
Claim 11 is rejected under a different interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution
The teachings of Al-Shaikh have been described supra.
Al-Shaikh does not teach ORC as required by claim 2.
This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Diamond.
Diamond teaches postoperative adhesion development remains a major adverse consequence of surgery (page 994, lhc, 1st paragraph). In the US, there are only three FDA approved antiadhesion adjuvants inclusive of oxidized regenerated cellulose sold under the name Interceed (abstract; page 995, rhc; Supplemental Table 1). As evidenced by Gensini, Interceed has a carboxyl content from about 9 to 21% (paragraphs [0024]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oxidized cellulose powder of the method of Al-Shaikh to comprise oxidized regenerated cellulose as taught by Diamond inclusive of that sold under the name Interceed in order to prevent adhesions. One would have been motivated to do so because oxidized regenerated cellulose is FDA approved for this purpose. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because oxidized regenerated cellulose falls within the genus of oxidized cellulose embraced by Al-Shaikh.
Regarding the adhesion prevention potency as compared to a fabric as required by claim 11, because Al-Shaikh and Diamond render obvious a method as instantly claimed, it necessarily follows that the practice of the method of the prior art must also achieve the results instantly claimed. In further support of this position, the instantly claimed result is that of Interceed (e.g., Example 1 of the instant specification).
Claims 3-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaikh et al. “Oxidised cellulose powder for hemostasis following sinus surgery: a pilot randomised trial,” The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 1 of 5, 2014 as evidenced by Bloodcare, last revised May 2018 as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Diamond “Reduction in postoperative adhesion development,” Fertility and Sterility 106(5):994-997, 2016 as applied to claims 1, 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Gensini (US 2013/0084324, published April 4, 2013, IDS reference filed July 29, 2024).
The teachings of Al-Shaikh and Diamond have been described supra.
They do not teach ORC having a carboxyl content below 18% as required by claim 3.
They do not teach ORC having a carboxyl content from 9 to 18% as required by claim 4.
They do not teach ORC having a carboxyl content from 9 to below 18% as required by claim 5.
They do not teach gamma irradiation as required by claim 10.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Gensini.
Gensini teaches adhesion preventing fabric comprising oxidized regenerated cellulose useful for adhesion prevention in the presence of blood (title; abstract; claims). When the cellulose functions as a hemostat, the carboxyl content is 18 to 21% and when the cellulose functions as an adhesion prevention barrier, the carboxyl content is 9 to 21% (claims 1-7; Figure 2; paragraphs [0023]-[0025]; Example 2), as required by instant claims 3-5. The fabric may be sterilized with gamma irradiation (paragraph [0031]), as required by instant claim 10.
Regarding claims 3-5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oxidized regenerated cellulose powder of the method of Al-Shaikh and Diamond to have a carboxyl content of 9 to 21% as taught by Gensini in order to prevent adhesions. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, it would have been obvious to optimize the carboxyl content in order to balance adhesion prevention with hemostasis. It is prima facie obvious to optimize such result-effective variables within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation. "[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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sterilize the oxidized regenerated cellulose powder of the method of Al-Shaikh and Diamond via gamma irradiation as taught by Gensini in order to mitigate infection.
Claims 6-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaikh et al. “Oxidised cellulose powder for hemostasis following sinus surgery: a pilot randomised trial,” The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 1 of 5, 2014 as evidenced by Bloodcare, last revised May 2018 as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Diamond “Reduction in postoperative adhesion development,” Fertility and Sterility 106(5):994-997, 2016 as applied to claims 1, 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 2015/0075516 A, published July 6, 2015, as evidenced by the Google translation as submitted with the IDS filed October 16, 2024).
The teachings of Al-Shaikh and Diamond have been described supra.
They do not teach an aggregate as required by claim 6.
They do not teach milling as required by claim 7.
They do not teach at least 90% of the powder has a size ranging from 10 to 2000, from 50 to 300 microns as required by claims 8, 9.
They do not teach an additive inclusive of CMC as required by claim 14.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Kim.
Kim teaches a composition for hemostasis and adhesion prevention comprising an oxidized regenerated cellulose in the form of short fibers or powder having a size of 5 to 50 microns and a carboxyl content of 12 to 24% (title; abstract; claims, in particular 1, 3, 4), as required by instant claims 8, 9. The composition may further comprise a gel enhancing substance such as carboxymethylcellulose (claim 6; page 2, 2nd to last full paragraph), as required by instant claim 14. Kim further teaches fiberization or milling (aggregate) (page 3, 5th full paragraph), as required by instant claims 6, 7.
Regarding claims 6-9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain oxidized regenerated cellulose powder for use in the method of Al-Shaikh and Diamond by fiberization or milling (aggregate) to a size of 5 to 50 microns as taught by Kim in order to prevent adhesions. See MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, it would have been obvious to optimize the particle size in order attain the desired hemostasis and adhesion prevention. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oxidized regenerated cellulose powder for use in the method of Al-Shaikh and Diamond to further comprise carboxymethylcellulose as taught by Kim in order to enhance or re-inforce the cellulose gel at the site of the wound.
Claims 6-9, 12-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaikh et al. “Oxidised cellulose powder for hemostasis following sinus surgery: a pilot randomised trial,” The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 1 of 5, 2014 as evidenced by Bloodcare, last revised May 2018 as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Diamond “Reduction in postoperative adhesion development,” Fertility and Sterility 106(5):994-997, 2016 as applied to claims 1, 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Wang et al. ‘974 (US 2013/0316974, published November 28, 2013, IDS reference filed July 29, 2024).
The teachings of Al-Shaikh and Diamond have been described supra.
They do not teach an aggregate as required by claim 6.
They do not teach milling as required by claim 7.
They do not teach at least 90% of the powder has a size ranging from 10 to 2000, from 50 to 300 microns as required by claims 8, 9.
They do not teach roller compacted ORC and/or hammer mill processed OC as required by claims 12, 19.
They do not teach particles having an average size of 1.75 to 116 microns with a median size of 36 microns as required by claim 13.
They do not teach an additive inclusive of CMC as required by claim 14.
They do not teach a density greater than 0.45 g/mL as required by claim 16.
They do not teach a flowability of at least 70 cm/s as required by claim 18.
They do not teach hammer mill processed ORC as required by claim 20.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Wang ‘974.
Wang ‘974 teaches oxidized regenerated cellulose hemostatic powders (title; abstract; claims). The powders are ball milled, roller compacted or hammer mill processed (claims 2, 3), as required by instant claims 7, 12, 19 and 20. The powders have a density of at least 0.45 g/cm3 (g/mL) (claim 7), as required by instant claim 16. The powders have a flowability of at least 7.5 cm/s, of at least 70 (claims 8, 10), as required by instant claim 18. The powders have an average particle size of 1.75 to 116 microns with a median size of 36 microns (claim 9), as required by instant claim 13. The powders have an overall size less than 500 microns (paragraph [0029]), as required by instant claims 8, 9. The exemplary powders have the form of rounded aggregates having an aspect ratio close to 1 (paragraph [0046]), as required by instant claim 6. The powders may further comprise an additive such as CMC (claim 4), as required by instant claim 14. Additives further improve hemostatic, wound healing and handling properties (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claims 7, 12, 19 and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain oxidized regenerated cellulose powder for use in the method of Al-Shaikh and Diamond by ball milling, roller compacting or hammer milling as taught by Wang ‘974 because these are art-recognized methods suitable for powderizing oxidized regenerated cellulose.
Regarding claims 6, 8, 9, 13, 16 and 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that oxidized regenerated powder obtained according to the method of Wang ‘974 would have the form of rounded aggregates, would have an overall size less than 500 microns, would have an average particle size of 1.75 to 116 microns with a median size of 36 microns, would have a density of at least 0.45 g/cm3 (g/mL) or/and would have a flowability of at least 7.5 cm/s, of at least 70 because Wang ‘974 teaches such.
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oxidized regenerated cellulose powder for use in the method of Al-Shaikh and Diamond to further comprise an additive such as CMC as taught by Wang ‘974 in order further improve hemostatic, wound healing and handling properties.
Claims 6-9, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaikh et al. “Oxidised cellulose powder for hemostasis following sinus surgery: a pilot randomised trial,” The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 1 of 5, 2014 as evidenced by Bloodcare, last revised May 2018 as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Diamond “Reduction in postoperative adhesion development,” Fertility and Sterility 106(5):994-997, 2016 as applied to claims 1, 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Wang ‘618 (US 2017/0128618, published May 11, 2017, IDS July 29, 2024).
The teachings of Al-Shaikh and Diamond have been described supra.
They do not teach an aggregate as required by claim 6.
They do not teach milling as required by claim 7.
They do not teach at least 90% of the powder has a size ranging from 10 to 2000, from 50 to 300 microns as required by claims 8, 9.
They do not teach roller compacted ORC and/or hammer mill processed OC as required by claims 12, 19.
They do not teach an additive inclusive of CMC as required by claim 14.
They do not teach a distribution having a D15 greater than about 80 microns, a D50 from about 140 to 250 microns, and a D90 less than about 370 microns as required by claim 15.
They do not teach a density greater than 0.45 g/mL as required by claim 16.
They do not teach interconnected individual fibrils having in the aggregate form a sphericity of at least 0.6, a long axis that is less than about 500 microns and greater than about 50 microns as required by claim 17.
They do not teach hammer mill processed ORC as required by claim 20.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Wang ‘618.
Wang ‘618 teaches compacted hemostatic cellulose aggregates obtained from oxidized regenerated cellulose fabric (title; abstract; claims), as required by instant claim 6. The aggregates comprise a plurality of interconnected fibrils having in aggregate form a sphericity of at least 0.6, a dimension along its longest axis that is less than about 500 microns and greater than about 50 microns (claim 19), as required by instant claim 17. The aggregates have a size distribution profile with d15 greater than about 80 microns, d50 from about 140 to 250 microns, d90 less than about 370 microns (claim 20), as required by instant claim 15. The aggregates have a bulk density greater than 0.45 g/mL (claim 20), as required by instant claim 16. The size distribution profile of the hemostatic aggregates as measured by d50 does not fall below 100 microns (claim 22), as required by instant claims 8, 9. The aggregates are obtained by a process comprising the steps of milling and roller compacting (claim 1), as required by instant claims 7, 12 and 19. Milling includes hammer milling (paragraph [0038]), as required by instant claims 12 and 20. The aggregates may further comprise additives such as CMC to further improve the hemostatic, wound healing and handling properties (abstract; paragraph [0111]), as required by instant claim 14.
Regarding claims 7, 12, 19 and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain oxidized regenerated cellulose powder for use in the method of Al-Shaikh and Diamond by milling inclusive of hammer milling and by roller compacting as taught by Wang ‘618 because these are art-recognized methods suitable for powderizing oxidized regenerated cellulose.
Regarding claims 6, 8, 9 and 14-16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that oxidized regenerated powder obtained according to the method of Wang ‘618 would have the form of aggregates, would have a d50 that does not fall below 100 microns, would have a d15 greater than about 80 microns, a d50 from about 140 to 250 microns and a d90 less than about 370 microns, would have a bulk density greater than 0.45 g/mL or/and would comprise a plurality of interconnected fibrils having in aggregate form a sphericity of at least 0.6, a dimension along its longest axis that is less than about 500 microns and greater than about 50 microns because Wang ‘618 teaches such.
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oxidized regenerated cellulose powder for use in the method of Al-Shaikh and Diamond to further comprise an additive such as CMC as taught by Wang ‘618 in order further improve hemostatic, wound healing and handling properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA PROSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-5164. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th, 10 am - 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID BLANCHARD can be reached on (571)272-0827. 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.
/ALISSA PROSSER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
Prosecution Insights