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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A and aa in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant has not specifically stated if the election was with or without traverse, but did argue that the technical feature of generic claim 1 makes a contribution over the prior art in view of the concurrently filed amendments. An additional teaching is provided below to address the missing limitations of Opolski/Kang, therefore establishing that the amended claim also does not comprise a special technical feature. As such, the restriction requirement is maintained because unity of invention is not present.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 9, and 11-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 2-7, 9, and 11-22 begin with “A” despite being dependent on a previously recited claim. Each dependent claims should begin with “The”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “anchor element” and “braking element” in claim 7 and 9.
Both the anchor element and the braking element are disclosed as a bead or knot in the specification of the present invention (Page 22 lines 15-28).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 and 11 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.
Claim 9 recites “the distal aperture” and “the proximal aperture” in line 3. Claims 1 and 7, from which claim 9 depends, disclose two distal apertures and two proximal apertures, and references a first of the proximal apertures and a second of the proximal apertures. The recitation in claim 9 of “the distal aperture” and “the proximal aperture” is unclear because it does not establish which of the distal and proximal apertures is being referred to.
Claim 11 recites “a control wire” in line 2. A control wire is already set forth in claim 1, therefore it is unclear if claim 11 is intending to establish another control wire or is referring to the control wire of claim 1. If referring to the same control wire as claim 1, then claim 11 fails to further limit the claims because claim 1 already recites “a bioresorbable control wire (40) operably connecting the actuator (24) of the introducer device and the distal end (4A, 31) of the occlusion device (1)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opolski (US 2007/0118176) in view of Chanduszko et al. (US 2012/0316602), further in view of Kang (EP 3777716).
Regarding claim 1, Opolski discloses a large bore extra-vascular closure system (FIG 9A) to occlude a large bore tissue tract proximal to a blood vessel (FIG 9B showing a bore in a vasculature that the device is a least configured to occlude, [0002]), comprising: an introducer device (161) having a through lumen (See lumen in cross section of FIG 9A) and a handle (Proximal end of 161 manipulated by a user) comprising an actuator (Component which applies retracting force to 137,[0123]); a bioresorbable occlusion device (20) having a distal end (39), a proximal end (44, FIG 11-13), a sidewall section (Tubular section having slits and forming body between the distal and proximal ends) comprising a waist section configured for outward inflection upon axial compression of the device (Section which deflects to form 32a-d and 42a-d, [0081 and 0085]), and a through lumen (See lumen in FIG 9H), wherein the occlusion device is configured for adjustment from an elongated delivery configuration in which the occlusion device is dimensioned to fit within the through lumen of the introducer device (FIG 9A and 9C) and a squat deployed configuration in which the waist section of the occlusion device is expanded radially outwardly (FIG 9H); a bioresorbable control wire (131 including 135, 133, 137, [0112-0113, 0115, 0123]) operably connecting the actuator of the introducer device (Via 137) and the distal end of the occlusion device (Via stopper 133, FIG 9H, [0123]), wherein the actuator is configured upon actuation to pull the control wire proximally to deploy the occlusion device (FIG 9C-9H, [0123]).
Opolski is silent regarding the distal end of the occlusion device comprising two distal apertures and the proximal end of the device comprising two proximal apertures, in which the control wire extends through a first of the proximal apertures, loops through the distal apertures in the distal end of the device and extends through a second of the proximal apertures.
However, Chanduszko et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor an occlusion device (FIGs 8-12, [0059]) comparable to that taught by Opolski, and further teaches an alternative actuation wire mechanism (FIGs 67-68, [0112-0113]) wherein the distal end of the occlusion device (110/410) comprises two distal apertures (416, 418) and the proximal end of the device (106) comprises two proximal apertures (412, 414), in which the control wire (420) extends through a first of the proximal apertures, loops through the distal apertures in the distal end of the device and extends through a second of the proximal apertures (FIGs 67-67, [0112-0113]), and wherein an actuator is configured to pull the control wire proximally (by twisting and therefore shortening the effective length of the wire) to deploy the occlusion device ([0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the control wire of Opolski to loop through the occlusion device by passing thorough two proximal apertures and two distal apertures formed in the occlusion device, as taught by Chanduszko, for the purpose of utilizing a technique commonly known in the art for achieving the predictable result of controlling the adjustment of the occlusion device between the delivery configuration and the squat deployed configuration by manipulating the control wire at a proximal position.
Opolski is further silent regarding an injectable filler material configured for injection into the hollow lumen of the occlusion device when deployed, wherein the injectable filler material is bioresorbable.
However, Kang teaches deploying an occluder (8, FIG 1) along with an injectable filler material ([0041-0043] injectable in-situ hydrogel) configured for injection into a hollow lumen (See lumen in FIG 3) of the occlusion device when deployed ([0041-0042]), wherein the injectable filler material is bioresorbable ([0042] discloses the hydrogel is biodegradable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
provide the device of Opolski with a bioresorbable injectable filler material, as taught by Kang, for the purpose of achieving defect filling and closure (Kang [0041]) to improve the occlusion at the treatment site.
Regarding claim 2, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. The device as modified by Kang further discloses the injectable filler material is thermoresponsive ([0041] discloses transitioning from a liquid to solid due to temperature sensitivity).
Regarding claim 5-6, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Opolski further discloses the sidewall section of the bioresorbable occlusion device comprises a plurality of struts providing a sidewall section with an open framework (FIG 2A-2M shows the sidewall comprises slits 241, 231 which form the struts having an opening framework, [0054-0055]), in which the plurality of struts are arranged around a longitudinal axis of the bioresorbable occlusion device (See longitudinal axis formed along the length of the device and the struts being arranged around said axis, FIG 2A-2D and 9A-9H).
Regarding claim 7 and 9, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
The device as modified is silent regarding the bioresorbable control wire comprising an anchor element that cannot pass through the first of the proximal apertures or the two distal apertures, and a braking element dimensioned for a friction fit through the first of the proximal apertures or the two distal apertures, in which the anchor element is disposed on the control wire distally of the distal aperture or proximally of the proximal aperture and is dimensioned such that it cannot pass through the distal aperture.
However, Chanduszko teaches in the alternative embodiment of FIG 56-57, a device having a control wire (364, 370, [0103] discloses the first string 364 and second string 370 may be one continuous string that passes through the distal joint) which loops through the distal end (110) of the occlusion device similar to that of the present embodiment, and further comprises an anchor element (365) that cannot pass through the distal aperture (365 is sized such that it cannot pass through the distal aperture formed within 110, FIG 56-57, [0100]), and a braking element (any one of 362, 368) dimensioned for a friction fit through the proximal aperture (FIGs 56-57 show 362 and 368 are sized to fit through the proximal aperture formed within 106 upon application of a sufficient force, [0100-0101]), in which the anchor element is disposed on the control wire distally of the distal aperture (FIG 56) and is dimensioned such that it cannot pass through the distal aperture (FIG 56-57, 365 does not pass through the aperture at any point during operation because it is blocked by its diameter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the control wire to comprise an anchor element positioned distally of the distal aperture and sized such that it cannot pass through the two distal apertures and a braking element sized such that it can friction fit through the proximal apertures, as taught by the alternative embodiment of Chanduszko, for the purpose of providing the control wire with a mechanism to secure the occlusion device in the deployed “catch” positioning, [0101].
Regarding claim 11, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. The device as modified further discloses a control wire (131, as modified by Chanduszko to be a loop) connecting the actuator of the introducer device (The control wire is attached to the proximal end of the introducer to the actuator for proximal retraction) and the distal end (By being looped around the two distal apertures) of the occlusion device.
Regarding claim 12, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. The device as modified by Chanduszko further discloses the control wire is a closed loop (FIGs 67-68 show the closed loop).
Regarding claim 15-16, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Opolski further discloses the waisted section of the sidewall is formed by an outward inflection zone (see annotated FIG 9H below) disposed intermediate the ends (of each elongated strut (this point is positioned along the length of the struts between each end) configured to allow each of the elongated struts to fold radially outwardly during deployment (As shown in the movement between FIG 9D-9H) and each of the elongated struts comprises an inward inflection zone disposed (see annotated FIG 9H below) at each end of the elongated struts configured to allow an adjacent section each of the elongated struts to bend radially outwardly during deployment (FIG 9H).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Opolski discloses the occlusion device is longer in the delivery configuration (FIG 9A) than in the deployed configuration (FIG 9H) and has a smaller diameter in the delivery configuration than in the deployed configuration (FIGs 9A and 9H) but is silent regarding any dimensions of the occlusion device and therefore fails to disclose the occlusion device has a length of 4.0 to 12.0 mm in a delivery configuration and a length of 0.5 to 4.0 mm in a deployed configuration and a maximum diameter of 4.0 to 12.0 mm in a delivery configuration and a maximum diameter of 8.0 to 8.7mm in a deployed configuration.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the occlusion device of Opolski to have a length of 4.0 to 12.0 mm in a delivery configuration and a length of 0.5 to 4.0 mm in a deployed configuration and a maximum diameter of 4.0 to 12.0 mm in a delivery configuration and a maximum diameter of 8.0 to 8.7mm in a deployed configuration since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Opolski would not operate differently with the claimed length and diameter and since the occlusion device is intended to have a longer delivery configuration and a smaller delivery diameter, the device would function appropriately having the claimed lengths and diameters. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter can be within the claimed ranges (specification page 8 lines 1-11). The specification alternatively states “In any embodiment, the occlusion device has a length of 0.4-8.0 mm in a delivery configuration and a length of 4.0-12.0 mm in a deployed configuration. In any embodiment, the occlusion device has a maximum diameter of 0.4-9.3 mm in a delivery configuration and a maximum diameter of 8.0-10.7 mm in a deployed configuration” (page 10 lines 24-39). The conflicting ranges provided in the disclosure further demonstrate the lack of criticality of the dimensions.
Regarding claim 18, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Opolski further discloses the introducer device comprises a distal conduit (169, FIG 9A, [0123]) housing the through lumen (FIG 9A) and an outer retractable sheath (161) configured for axial adjustment relative to the distal conduit ([0123]) from a delivery configuration in which a distal end of the outer retractable sheath extends distally of the distal end of the distal conduit providing a space for receipt of the occlusion device (FIG 9A) and a deployment configuration where the outer retractable sheath is retracted distally to expose the occlusion device to a surrounding wall of the tissue tract (FIG 9H).
Regarding claim 19, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Opolski further discloses the introducer device comprises a distal conduit (161) housing the through lumen (FIG 9A) and a control wire lumen (Lumen of 169) to house the or each control wire (FIG 9A shows this lumen housing wire 137 of the control wire).
Regarding claim 20, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 19. Opolski further discloses the distal conduit comprises a first control wire lumen for a descending part the control wire (The lumen within 169 is at least configured to house a descending part of the control wire, FIG 9A) and a second control wire lumen for an ascending part of the control wire (The lumen formed by 161 distal of 139 is at least configured to house an ascending part of the control wire, FIG 9A).
Regarding claim 21, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 19. Opolski further discloses the introducer device comprises a window to allow access to a control wire lumen allowing the control wire to be cut after the occlusion device has been deployed and anchored (There is a separation between the distal end of 169 and the proximal end of 44, wherein the control wire can be exposed for severing, see FIG 9G for example).
Regarding claim 22, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Opolski further discloses the distal end of the occlusion device has a peripheral flange section that extends radially outwardly of a distal end of the sidewall section (See annotated FIG 9H above), wherein the distal end or peripheral flange section comprises a deformable material (The section is formed of at least one of the loops 32, which comprises the deformable material [0054-0057]).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opolski (US 2007/0118176) in view of Chanduszko et al. (US 2012/0316602), further in view of Kang (EP 3777716), further in view Ryan et al. (US 2021/0059654), further in view of Uber et al. (US 2007/0106208).
Regarding claim 3-4, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. The device as modified by Kang further discloses the injectable filler material can be injected through the introducer device (10) in which the occlusion device has been loaded ([0041]).
The device as modified is silent regarding a syringe device comprising a delivery conduit configured to extend through the through lumen of the introducer device to deliver injectable filler material into the through lumen of the bioresorbable occlusion device when the bioresorbable occlusion device is deployed.
However, Ryan teaches a system for delivery of hydrogel to an occlusive treatment site within a patient (abstract) comprising a syringe device (15, FIG 2C and 5A-5B, [0203]) comprising a delivery conduit configured to extend through the through lumen of the introducer device (Via tubing 11 and the lumen of hydrogel delivery needle 4, [0217]) to deliver injectable filler material into the through lumen of the bioresorbable occlusion device (7) when the bioresorbable occlusion device is deployed ([0214]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device to comprise a syringe having a delivery conduit configured to extend through the through lumen of the introducer device, as taught by Ryan, for the purpose of providing a fluid advancement mechanism commonly known in the art for delivery of a hydrogel ([0203]).
The device is further silent regarding the delivery conduit of the syringe device comprises a non-stick coating configured to inhibit the injectable filler material sticking to an inside of the delivery conduit.
However, Uber discloses a syringe (1060) for injecting biocompatible materials to a treatment site within a patient (abstract) wherein the delivery conduit of the syringe device (“fluid path” [0161]) comprises a non-stick coating (lubricious coating, [0161]) configured to inhibit an injectable filler material sticking to an inside of the delivery conduit ([0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a the time of filing to modify the delivery conduit of the syringe device to comprise a non-stick coating, as taught by Uber, for the purpose of reducing friction and wall adherence of the injectable material traveling through the delivery conduit (Uber [0141]).
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opolski (US 2007/0118176) in view of Chanduszko et al. (US 2012/0316602), further in view of Kang (EP 3777716), further in view of Akerfeldt et al. (US 6,860,895).
Regarding claim 13-14, Opolski/Chanduszko/Kang disclose the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
The device is silent regarding the actuator is a rotor and the control wire is mounted to the rotor whereby rotation of the rotor effects movement of the control wire relative to the introducer device, in which the rotor comprises a graduated scale disposed on a circumference of the rotor indicating a range of large bore sizes.
However, Akerfeldt teaches in the same field of endeavor of a large bore occlusion system (FIG 8-12) wherein an occlusion device (FIG 1) is positioned within a bore of a vessel wall (FIG 2) and expanded to a deployed configuration via proximal retraction of a control wire (6) by an actuator/rotor (gear mechanism 132, FIG 8), whereby rotation of the rotor effects movement of the control wire relative to the introducer device (col 7 line 44-col 8 line 57; comprising at least rotation of the gears which effects movement of the control wire) in which the rotor comprises a graduated scale disposed on a circumference of the rotor indicating a range of large bore sizes (The teeth of the gears are interpreted as a graduated scale because they can be used to determine the length of the control wire and therefore the bore size based on the positioning of the occlusion device for deployment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the actuator of Opolski to be a rotor and the control wire being mounted to the rotor whereby rotation of the rotor effects movement of the control wire relative to the introducer device, as taught by Akerfeldt, for the purpose of utilizing a technique commonly known in the art to automate the retraction of the control wire and therefore deployment of the occlusion device, with the benefit of having increased precision over manual actuation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE N LABRANCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 5712727134. 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.
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights