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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/13/2026 with respect to the rejection of Independent Claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bogle, M., "Fractionated Mid-Infrared Resurfacing," Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 27(4):252-8, January 2009 (“Bogle”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s amendments have altered the scope of Claim 1 such that the scope of the terms “illumination pattern” and “pattern element” have been altered. Claim 1 has additionally been amended to recite “a) wherein the illumination pattern comprises a lattice comprising the at least one pattern element, and wherein the lattice comprises a lattice of closely packed rings, the neighboring rings touching each other, or a lattice of closely packed rounded hexagonal rings, the neighboring rounded hexagonal rings touching each other, or b) wherein the illumination pattern comprises a mesh comprising the at least one pattern element; and wherein the mesh comprises a honeycomb lattice.” The Examiner agrees that Bogle does not teach this additional Claim 1 limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 6,235,015 B1.
Applicant’s arguments regarding US 2014/0018783 A1 to Modi et al. (“Modi”) are moot, as Modi is no longer relied upon in any foregoing rejection. Modi’s inapplicability is a consequence of the alterations in scope of the terms “illumination pattern” and “pattern element” caused by the Claim 1 amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent Claims 2-5, 8-9, 11-15 and 17 are based on Applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 1. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive for the same reasons as explained above. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 6,235,015 B1.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of 6. Claims 3-6, 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that Applicant’s amendments have resolved the cited indefiniteness issues. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “…wherein the line shape has a length (L) of at least 4 times” but should recite -- wherein the line shape has a length (L) of at least 4 times of the first width--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “The apparatus of Claim 10,” but should recite –The apparatus of Claim 1-- because Claim 10 has been canceled and its subject matter incorporated into Claim 1. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Bogle, M., "Fractionated Mid-Infrared Resurfacing," Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 27(4):252-8, January 2009 (“Bogle”) in view of US 6,235,015 B1 to Mead et al. (“Mead”).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Bogle teaches:
An apparatus for laser treatment of a tissue surface, (Pg. 252, Left Column First Paragraph, “The concept of fractional photothermolysis was introduced in 2004 in an attempt to deliver results approaching that of traditional ablative laser resurfacing without the associated risks and lengthy recovery period.1 Whereas traditional laser resurfacing removes the entire top layer of the skin surface, creating a visible wound and loss of the skin’s protective function, fractional laser resurfacing treats a small “fraction” of the skin at each session;” Pg. 252, Right Column, Second Paragraph)
The “the second-generation Fraxel SR1500 (now termed the Fraxel Re:Store)” first discussed at Bogle’s Pg. 252, Right Column, Second Paragraph is such an apparatus.
the apparatus comprising: at least one optical element for illuminating the tissue surface with at least one laser pulse having an illumination pattern; (Pg. 252, Right Column, Second Paragraph, “The second-generation Fraxel incorporates several changes, including a telescoping zoom lens that adjusts the diameter of the treatment column with respect to the treatment energy and a roller tip that uses a scanning LED to track the surface of skin without optical blue dye. Lower energy, more superficial treatment columns are smaller in diameter, and higher energy, deeper treatment columns are larger in diameter.”);
The “telescoping zoom lens that adjusts the diameter of the treatment column” in “the second-generation Fraxel SR1500 (now termed the Fraxel Re:Store)” is such an “at least one optical element” as claimed.
Bogle’s “treatment column” is such an “illumination pattern” as claimed.
The Examiner notes that Bogle’s “125 or 250 columns of MTZs are created per centimeter squared” could be interpreted as such an “illumination pattern” as claimed.
wherein the at least one optical element is configured such that: the illumination pattern comprises at least one pattern element a first width of less than 300 micrometers; (Pg. 252, Left Column, Second Paragraph, “The beam is delivered through an optically tracked, microprocessor controlled hand piece to produce an array of microthermal thermal zones (MTZs), each about 100 µm in diameter, or about the size of a human hair. During each treatment, 125 or 250 columns of MTZs are created per centimeter squared per pass, depending on operator settings.”);
Bogle’s “microthermal thermal zones (MTZs), each about 100 µm in diameter” are each such an “at least one pattern element” as claimed.
Bogle’s “100 µm in diameter” is such “a first width of less than 300 micrometers” as claimed.
Bogle’s “columns of MTZs” (noted above to correspond to the claimed “illumination pattern”) are formed of Bogle’s MTZs. Bogle’s “illumination pattern” (i.e., Bogle’s columns) thus “comprises at least one pattern element” (i.e., Bogle’s “columns” are formed from and thus comprise Bogle’s MTZs) in the manner claimed.
and an effective surface coverage of the illumination pattern is more than 10%. (Pg. 252, Right Column, Second Paragraph, “The Fraxel Re:Store has varying treatment levels (1 through 12 and advanced levels R1-R3) which control the coverage area ranging from 5% to 50% of the skin surface area.”).
Bogle describes “the second-generation Fraxel SR1500 (now termed the Fraxel Re:Store)” as having a coverage area which can be set anywhere between 5% and 50%. Bogle thus describes “at least one optical element … configured such that: … an effective surface coverage of the illumination pattern is more than 10%,” as claimed.
Bogle does not disclose:
a) wherein the illumination pattern comprises a lattice comprising the at least one pattern element, and wherein the lattice comprises a lattice of closely packed rings, the neighboring rings touching each other, or a lattice of closely packed rounded hexagonal rings, the neighboring rounded hexagonal rings touching each other, or b) wherein the illumination pattern comprises a mesh comprising the at least one pattern element; and wherein the mesh comprises a honeycomb lattice.
Mead describes a “Method and apparatus for selective hair depilation using a scanned beam of light at 600 to 1000 nm” (Title). Mead is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e., Mead pertains to “shaping an illumination pattern of laser pulses” similarly to the Present Invention, see Present Specification at Pg. 2, Ln. 15-16), and is thus analogous art.
Mead teaches:
a) wherein the illumination pattern comprises a lattice comprising the at least one pattern element, and wherein the lattice comprises a lattice of closely packed rings, the neighboring rings touching each other, or a lattice of closely packed rounded hexagonal rings, the neighboring rounded hexagonal rings touching each other, or b) wherein the illumination pattern comprises a mesh comprising the at least one pattern element; and wherein the mesh comprises a honeycomb lattice. (Fig. 4; Col. 7, Ln. 57-63, “FIG. 4 is a plot of an irradiation pattern of the present invention showing stepped scan positions during a single scan. …;” see Annotated Fig. 4, below)
PNG
media_image1.png
714
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bogle with the teachings of Mead (i.e., to configure Bogle’s “optical element” to form from Bogle’s pattern elements such a lattice of closely packed rings, with neighboring rings touching each other, as taught by Mead, thereby replacing Bogle’s “illumination pattern” with Mead’s) in order to “provide the ability to effectively treat … large areas of skin” (Mead at Col. 6, Ln. 52-55).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Bogle and Mead renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bogle additionally discloses:
wherein a pulse energy of the at least one laser pulse is within a range such that the corresponding fluence on the tissue surface corresponds to a non-ablative treatment of the tissue surface (Pg. 252, Left Column First Paragraph; Pg. 252, Left Column, Second Paragraph; Pg. 253, Left Column, Third Paragraph, “The devices discussed above are all nonablative fractional mid-infrared systems.”).
Bogle describes “the second-generation Fraxel SR1500 (now termed the Fraxel Re:Store)” as a non-ablative laser (it is a fractional laser).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Bogle and Mead renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bogle additionally discloses:
wherein the apparatus further comprises a laser source (Pg. 252, Left Column, Second Paragraph, “The Fraxel SR750 (Reliant Technologies Inc., Mountain View, CA), the first fractional resurfacing laser developed, uses a diode pumped erbium fiber laser emitting light at 1540 nm to target water in the skin;” Pg. 253, Left Column, Third Paragraph, “The devices discussed above are all nonablative fractional mid-infrared systems.”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Bogle and Mead renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bogle additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one pattern element has a line shape and/or forms at least a part of a line shape (Pg. 252, Left Column, Second Paragraph).
Bogle’s “columns of MTZs” are such “a line shape” as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Bogle and Mead renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bogle additionally discloses:
wherein the first width corresponds to a width of the line shape and wherein the line shape has a length (L) of at least 4 times of the first width (Pg. 252, Left Column, Second Paragraph, “During each treatment, 125 or 250 columns of MTZs are created per centimeter squared per pass, depending on operator settings.”).
Bogle’s “125 or 250 columns of MTZs are created per centimeter squared” span at least four times the width of an individual pattern element.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Bogle and Mead renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bogle additionally discloses:
wherein the effective surface coverage of the illumination pattern is less than 50%. (Pg. 252, Right Column, Second Paragraph, “The Fraxel Re:Store has varying treatment levels (1 through 12 and advanced levels R1-R3) which control the coverage area ranging from 5% to 50% of the skin surface area.”).
Bogle’s “coverage area ranging from 5% to 50%” is less than 50% as claimed.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Bogle and Mead renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Mead additionally teaches:
wherein the illumination pattern forms boundary lines of a tessellation pattern (Fig. 4; Mead’s pattern shown in Mead’s Fig. 4 is a tessellation pattern).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Bogle and Mead renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bogle additionally discloses:
A method for shaping an illumination pattern of laser pulses for tissue treatment, the method comprising the following steps: (Pg. 256, Left Column, First Paragraph, “General treatment guidelines for the Fraxel Re:Store can be found in Table 1;” Pg. 257, Table 1);
providing the apparatus of claim 1, (Pg. 256, Left Column, First Paragraph; Pg. 257, Table 1; see Rejection of Claim 1, above, the citations therein noted are incorporated herein);
providing at least one laser pulse with the apparatus; (Pg. 253, Right Column, First and Second Paragraphs discuss pulses; Pg. 257, Table 1, “Energy (mJ)” Column);
shaping an illumination pattern of the at least one laser pulse such that the illumination pattern comprises at least one pattern element with a first width of less than 300 micrometers; and (Pg. 252, Left Column, First Paragraph describing the size of MZTs; Pg. 257, Table 1, both “Column Pattern” columns);
wherein an effective surface coverage of the illumination pattern is more than 10%. (Pg. 257, Table 1, “Total % Coverage” column, wherein all “Total % coverage” is listed as above 10%).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Bogle, M., "Fractionated Mid-Infrared Resurfacing," Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 27(4):252-8, January 2009 (“Bogle”) in view of US 6,235,015 B1 to Mead et al. (“Mead”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited US 2008/0208179 A1 to Chan et al. (“Chan”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Bogle and Mead discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
The combination of Bogle and Mead does not disclose:
wherein the at least one pulse has a pulse length shorter than 2 ms
Chan describes “Methods of treating tissue with fractional laser radiation…” (Abstract). Chan is analogous art.
Chan teaches:
wherein the at least one pulse has a pulse length shorter than 2 ms, preferably shorter than 900 microseconds (Para. [0168], “The section shown in FIG. 6A was treated using a fluence of 6 J/cm2, a pulse energy of 6 mJ, a pulse duration of 0.5 milliseconds (ms), a treatment zone size of 60 μm, a treatment zone density of 1000 treatment zones per cm2 (TZ/cm2) using the contact delivery mode, and was excised immediately after treatment;” see also Paras. [0169] through [0173]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bogle and Mead with the teachings of Chan (i.e., to modify the device of Bogle and Mead such that a pulse duration of shorter than 2 ms is characteristic of the pulse produced) in order to facilitate a desired results with respect to the impact on the epidermis, the stratum corneum, and coagulation (Chan at Paras. [0168] through [0175]).
Chan’s Paras. [0169] through [0175] describe the results of various pulse parameters including pulse duration with respect to the impact on the epidermis, the stratum corneum, and coagulation. Each has a different impact, and Chan makes clear that each particular impact is the result of the various pulse parameters including pulse duration. From Chan’s Paras. [0169] through [0175], it would be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that pulses of the claimed duration impact on the epidermis, the stratum corneum, and coagulation in a particular manner which longer pulses do not. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus be motivated to modify pulse duration to that claimed in order to impact the epidermis, the stratum corneum, and coagulation as desired
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Bogle, M., "Fractionated Mid-Infrared Resurfacing," Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 27(4):252-8, January 2009 (“Bogle”) in view of US 6,235,015 B1 to Mead et al. (“Mead”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited US 11,241,284 B1 to Varghese et al. (“Varghese”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Bogle and Mead renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
The combination of Bogle and Mead does not disclose:
wherein the apparatus is configured to deliver the at least one laser pulse, such that each of the at least one laser pulse heats the tissue surface to a temperature above 70°c.
Varghese describes “…a skin treatment device … for fractional treatment of the skin … of a human being” (Abstract). Varghese is analogous art.
Varghese teaches:
wherein the apparatus is configured to deliver the at least one laser pulse, such that each of the at least one laser pulse heats the tissue surface to a temperature above 70°c. (Col. 11, Ln. 45-49, “This will lead to high temperatures in the range of 60-100° C., preferably between 70 and 90° C. in the central zones and low-temperatures in the range of 39-50° C., preferably between 40 and 45° C. in the surrounding tissue.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Bogle and Mead with the teachings of Varghese (i.e., to modify the device of Bogle and Mead such that the at least one laser pulse heats the tissue surface to a temperature above 70°c) in order to ensure collagen denaturation and shrinkage (Varghese at Col. 3, Ln. 20-29).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Bogle, M., "Fractionated Mid-Infrared Resurfacing," Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 27(4):252-8, January 2009 (“Bogle”) in view of US 6,235,015 B1 to Mead et al. (“Mead”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0253331 A1 to Liu et al. (“Liu”).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Bogle and Mead renders obvious the entirety of Claim 10 as explained above.
The combination of Bogle and Mead does not disclose:
wherein the lattice comprises at least one lattice vector with a length (L) in a range from 0.1 mm to 10 mm
Liu describes a “Dermatological Treatment Device with One or More Laser Diode Bar” (Title). Liu is analogous art.
Liu teaches:
wherein the lattice comprises at least one lattice vector with a length (L) in a range from 0.1 mm to 10 mm (Table Following Para. [0171], “Proximity gap spacing” is listed as “1 mm-10 mm”).
Liu’s range of “1 mm-10 mm” lies inside the claimed range of “0.1 mm to 10 mm.” “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP 2144.05(I). Although Liu’s disclosed range does not precisely disclose the claimed range, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed range based on Liu’s only slightly narrower range, as doing so would be likely to result in success.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Bogle and Mead with the teachings of Liu (i.e., to modify the device of combined Bogle and Mead such that at least one lattice vector with a length (L) is in a range from 0.1 mm to 10 mm) in order to “ provide generally complete coverage of a target area of tissue” (Liu at Para. [0008]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Bogle, M., "Fractionated Mid-Infrared Resurfacing," Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 27(4):252-8, January 2009 (“Bogle”) in view of US 6,235,015 B1 to Mead et al. (“Mead”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Fotana X-Runner Leaflet, https://www.fotona.com/media/documents/92943_v1_x_runner_sx02_leaflet_16.pdf, accessed online 9/2/2026 via Wayback Machine at https://web.archive.org/web/ 20170611001946/https://www.fotona.com/media/documents/92943_v1_x_runner_sx02_leaflet_16.pdf, dated 6/11/2017 (“X-Runner NPL”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Bogle and Mead renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bogle additionally teaches:
wherein the at least one optical element is switchable between at least a first and a second configuration; (Pg. 256, Left Column First Paragraph, “General treatment guidelines for the Fraxel Re:Store can be found in Table 1. It is best to start a patient’s treatment course at the gentler range to avoid excessive edema and risks such as post inflammatory hyperpigmentation. Energy and coverage density can be increased as tolerated as the treatment series progresses;” Pg. 257, Table 1, showing various configurations which can be switched between).
The combination of Bogle and Mead does not disclose:
wherein the at least one pattern element comprises a first geometrical shape when the at least one optical element is in the first configuration and wherein the at least one pattern element comprises a second geometrical shape when the at least one optical element is in the second configuration, wherein the first geometrical shape is different from the second geometrical shape
X-Runner NPL describes a digitally controlled laser handpiece (Title). X-Runner NPL is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, and is thus analogous art.
X-Runner NPL teaches:
wherein the at least one pattern element comprises a first geometrical shape when the at least one optical element is in the first configuration and wherein the at least one pattern element comprises a second geometrical shape when the at least one optical element is in the second configuration, wherein the first geometrical shape is different from the second geometrical shape (Right Page, First Column, Bottom Figure and Caption thereunder, “Some of X-Runner’s shapes and sizes, which can be selected….”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Bogle and Mead with the teachings of X-Runner NPL (i.e., to modify the device of combined Bogle and Mead such that it is configured to switch between such pattern elements having different geometric shapes as taught by X-Runner NPL) in order to facilitate higher precision (X-Runner NPL at Right Page, Middle Column, Second Paragraph).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Bogle, M., "Fractionated Mid-Infrared Resurfacing," Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 27(4):252-8, January 2009 (“Bogle”) in view of US 6,235,015 B1 to Mead et al. (“Mead”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited US 6682524 B1 to Elbrecht et al. (“Elbrecht”).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Bogle and Mead renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
The combination of Bogle and Mead does not disclose:
wherein the at least one optical element comprises at least one diffractive optical element, at least one refractive optical element, and/or at least one metasurface for providing the illumination pattern, wherein preferably the at least one optical element comprises a micro lens.
Elbrecht describes “A dermatological handpiece by which a laser beam is directed to the surface of a selected skin area for purposes of a cosmetic treatment…” (Abstract). Elbrecht is analogous art.
Elbrecht teaches:
wherein the at least one optical element comprises at least one diffractive optical element, at least one refractive optical element, and/or at least one metasurface for providing the illumination pattern, wherein preferably the at least one optical element comprises a micro lens (Claim 14, “…wherein at least one optical element with an in-radiation surface which is sized in a micrometer scale and is accordingly micro-optically diffractive or refractive is provided…;” Col. 4, Ln. 12-22).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bogle and Mead with the teachings of Elbrecht (i.e., to use such a diffractive optical element or refractive optical element in the manner of Elbrecht) in order to facilitate uniformity in radiation intensity (Elbrecht at Col. 14, 23-28).
Art Made of Record Although Not Relied Upon
The Examiner makes note of the following prior art, which is deemed relevant although not relied upon in any foregoing rejection:
US 9,265,656 B2 (“Yee”) depicts such an illumination pattern comprising a honeycomb lattice mesh as alternatively recited by Claim 1 at Yee Fig. 6D in the context of “Grid pattern laser treatment and methods for treating an eye” (Yee at Title)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J MUTCHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8012. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights